Challenge to Federal Campaign Over Muting Vaccine Injury Assertions in Court
In the ongoing legal case Dressen, et al. v. Flaherty, et al., the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) is fighting against alleged collusion between federal entities and social media platforms to suppress individuals claiming Covid vaccine injuries.
At the heart of the case are six plaintiffs: Brianne Dressen, Shaun Barcavage, Kristi Dobbs, Nikki Holland, Suzanna Newell, and Ernest Ramirez. Each of them reported severe adverse reactions to Covid vaccines, with Ms. Dressen participating in the AstraZeneca vaccine trials before reportedly suffering complications. Tragically, Mr. Ramirez's son died five days post-vaccination.
Despite their experiences, the plaintiffs are not opposed to vaccination in general. The NCLA's comments suggest that the government's heavy-handed approach to Covid-19 vaccination, coupled with the alleged censorship of vaccine-injured individuals, contradicts the claims that vaccine injuries are virtually nonexistent.
The plaintiffs have faced relentless censorship on social media platforms where they sought solidarity and exchanged treatment ideas. Their attempts to share personal stories and support one another were met with content flags, removals, and the outright shutdown of their support groups.
The complaint highlights a campaign led by the White House, CDC, and Surgeon General's Office, accused of pressuring social media giants to dismiss and discredit personal accounts and communications within private online groups of vaccine-injured individuals.
The legal battle aims to secure an injunction against this alleged state-sponsored censorship, asserting that such actions violate the First Amendment's protections of free speech and association. The NCLA's legal team has expressed a strong commitment to holding the government accountable for its alleged role in the censorship of vaccine-injured individuals.
Casey Norman, Litigation Counsel at NCLA, has expressed concern over the government's evasion of its restraint and the Orwellian consequences of such censorship. Jenin Younes, another Litigation Counsel at NCLA, has pointed out the contradiction between the government's narrative and the plaintiffs' experiences.
The lawsuit is significant as it takes on a federal campaign to silence vaccine injury claims, which is seen as a violation of free speech and association protections. The NCLA's legal team has emphasised the gravity of the case, stating that it demonstrates the importance of the First Amendment and the harm caused by government censorship.
While specific court rulings or motions in Dressen v. Flaherty have not been publicly detailed in available sources, NCLA's communications as of mid-2025 emphasise the accumulation of evidence and their commitment to confronting government and platform collusion. This suggests that the case may still be in the evidence-gathering or pre-trial phase, with developments likely forthcoming from the plaintiffs.
As the legal case continues, the NCLA believes that the government's actions have caused harm not only to the plaintiffs but also to many other Americans who have suffered vaccine injuries and been silenced. The ongoing suppression efforts not only undermine the plaintiffs' rights but also silence an important dialogue about vaccine safety and personal health sovereignty. The lawsuit aims to hold the Administration and its officials accountable for their alleged unconstitutional conduct in silencing vaccine-injured individuals.
- The plaintiffs in the Dressen case, despite their experiences with vaccine injuries, do not oppose vaccination in general.
- The NCLA's legal team, in the ongoing legal battle (Dressen v. Flaherty), is committed to enforcing the First Amendment's protections of free speech and association, challenging the alleged state-sponsored censorship of vaccine-injured individuals.
- The plaintiffs, who faced censorship on social media, have been silenced and prevented from sharing their personal stories and exchanging treatment ideas.
- The lawsuit, which seeks an injunction against the alleged collusion between federal entities and social media platforms, argues that the government's actions violate health-and-wellness rights and undermine a crucial dialogue about vaccine safety and personal health sovereignty.
