ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS, INC. v. SCHIFF, 518 F.Supp.3d 505

Plaintiffs: Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS) and Katarina Verrilli allege Rep. Adam Schiff coerced tech platforms to suppress AAPS vaccine-related speech, harming AAPS and Verrilli.
Congressman Schiff sent letters to Google and Facebook (Feb 14, 2019) and Amazon (Mar 1, 2019) requesting information about platform efforts to address vaccine misinformation, published responses (Mar 7, 2019), and questioned Section 230 immunity at a House hearing (June 13, 2019).
Plaintiffs allege intervening third-party actions: Amazon removed two vaccine videos (Mar 1), Twitter added a pro-government vaccination disclaimer (May), Facebook began surfacing WHO/NIH/CDC links for AAPS article searches (policy announced Mar 7), and Amazon later terminated AAPS from its Associates program (Aug 9).
Plaintiffs claim reduced web traffic, lost affiliate revenue, reputational injury, and burdens on Verrilli’s ability to access vaccine information; they assert First Amendment and related claims against Schiff.
Schiff moved to dismiss, arguing lack of Article III standing, Speech or Debate Clause immunity, sovereign immunity, and failure to state a claim; the court dismissed for lack of standing and because the Speech or Debate Clause barred the claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Injury-in-fact (standing)	AAPS lost traffic/revenue and Verrilli lost convenient access to vaccine info; AAPS’s speech and association injured.	Plaintiffs plead only speculative, abstract harms and no concrete monetary loss or loss of access.	No injury: allegations are speculative/abstract; standing not met.
Causation (standing)	Schiff’s letters/hearing coerced platforms to act against AAPS, so harms trace to Schiff.	Platform actions were independent third-party decisions; no plausible link to Schiff’s generalized statements.	No causation: harms attributable to third parties, not fairly traceable to Schiff.
Redressability (standing)	A court order against Schiff would stop coercion and redress harms.	Even favorable relief against Schiff would not likely change independent platform behavior.	No redressability: relief against Schiff would not likely remedy asserted injuries.
Speech or Debate Clause immunity	Plaintiffs argue Schiff acted with nonlegislative, viewpoint-based purpose and exceeded legislative bounds.	Schiff contends letters, hearings, and information-gathering are protected legislative acts.	Claims barred: Clause provides absolute immunity for legislative acts (letters and hearing protected).

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing three-part test)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (injury must be concrete and particularized)
Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (causation requires traceability to defendant, not third parties)
Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (Speech or Debate Clause protects legislative committee conduct)
Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (congressional investigations and information-gathering protected)
McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (investigative power inherent in legislative function)
McSurely v. McClellan, 553 F.2d 1277 (D.C. Cir.) (informal information gathering is within legislative privilege)
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Williams, 62 F.3d 408 (D.C. Cir.) (privilege permits congressional investigations without court interference)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (court has independent obligation to confirm subject-matter jurisdiction)