Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Adam Schiff, 23 F.4th 1028

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and individual Katarina Verrelli sued Rep. Adam Schiff (individually and in his official capacity) seeking damages and injunctive/declaratory relief for alleged suppression of AAPS’s vaccine-related content.
Schiff sent letters (Feb–Mar 2019) to Google, Facebook, and Amazon asking about vaccine misinformation, posted the letters publicly, and later questioned §230 immunity at a House Intelligence Committee hearing.
AAPS alleges the tech companies demonetized, deprioritized, labeled, or otherwise disfavored its vaccine content (including removal from Amazon Associates), causing reduced web traffic, lost donations, and First Amendment/associational harms.
The district court granted Schiff’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion, dismissing for lack of Article III standing and concluding Speech or Debate Clause issues existed; the D.C. Circuit reviewed de novo.
The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal on the ground that plaintiffs failed to establish standing because their alleged injuries were speculative or not plausibly traceable to Schiff; the court did not resolve the Speech or Debate Clause immunity issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing — injury‑in‑fact	AAPS: concrete injuries — impaired contracting, lost revenue from reduced traffic, and First Amendment harms from de‑platforming	Schiff: injuries are speculative or premised on third‑party actions, so not "actual or imminent"	No standing: contracting claim speculative; other alleged injuries inadequately traceable
Traceability / causation	Schiff’s letters, publicization, and threats to §230 coerced tech firms to suppress AAPS content	Tech firms acted independently; many policy changes predated Schiff; allegations of coordination are conclusory	Causation not plausibly alleged; timeline and lack of factual detail defeat traceability
First Amendment standing standard (Broadrick)	Plaintiffs invoke Broadrick to argue relaxed standing for speech claims	Broadrick applies to facial overbreadth challenges, not as a general relaxation here	Broadrick inapplicable; ordinary standing rules govern
Leave to amend / Speech or Debate Clause	Plaintiffs argued on appeal for leave to join tech companies to cure standing defects, noting district court’s Speech or Debate ruling	Plaintiffs did not move to amend below; appellate amendment argument forfeited; no need to decide Speech or Debate immunity	Court declined to reach Speech or Debate Clause; amendment argument forfeited and not granted

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requires concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent injury)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (injury-in-fact must be concrete and particularized)
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) (standing rules relaxed only for facial overbreadth First Amendment challenges)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (conclusory allegations insufficient to plausibly allege conspiracy or coordinated conduct)
Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rts. Org., 426 U.S. 26 (1976) (standing cannot rest on injury caused by independent third parties not before the court)
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) (when plaintiff is not the direct object of government action, standing is harder to establish)
Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014) (discusses limits on standing and proximate causation principles)
Rangel v. Boehner, 785 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (standard of de novo review for standing determinations)
McCarthy v. Pelosi, 5 F.4th 34 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (court may address jurisdictional issues in any order)
Hurd v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 671 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (incorporation of external documents into pleadings for review)
Al‑Tamimi v. Adelson, 916 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (forfeiture of arguments not raised in the district court)