Informed Consent Action Network v. Becerra

Background

Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) and The Institute of Autism Science (IAS), both described as not-for-profit organizations, sued Xavier Becerra in his capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief concerning a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention webpage headed “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism.” They asked the court to require removal of that statement until the Secretary could demonstrate that scientific studies specifically supported the claim for vaccines given to babies.

The plaintiffs alleged that the statement lacked adequate scientific support and that it discouraged research into whether certain vaccines cause autism in babies. They relied on provisions of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, including provisions requiring the Secretary to promote vaccine safety and authorizing certain citizen suits. The plaintiffs also alleged that they had spent time and resources communicating with government officials, submitting Freedom of Information Act requests, and investigating and publicizing the issue.

Motion and Standing Analysis

The Secretary moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court explained that constitutional standing requires an injury that is concrete and particularized, a sufficient connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that the requested relief will remedy the injury.

The court held that ICAN had adequately pleaded an organizational injury at the early pleading stage. Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, the organizations had diverted significant time and resources from other activities to investigate and challenge the scientific support for the CDC statement. The court therefore found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged a concrete and particularized injury for that part of their standing theory.

The court nevertheless held that the plaintiffs had not shown causation. Their theory depended on the speculation that removing the CDC statement would cause independent researchers to study and publish research about the vaccine-autism connection for babies. The complaint did not show that the lack of research was caused by the government’s statement rather than by independent researchers’ priorities or the scientific consensus described in the opinion. The court characterized this as a missing link between the plaintiffs’ alleged injury and the challenged government conduct.

The court also held that the plaintiffs had not shown redressability—the requirement that the requested court order is likely to fix the alleged injury. Removing the statement would not necessarily cause researchers to stop citing it, begin the research the plaintiffs wanted, or publish findings that the plaintiffs could investigate and share. The court found that this chain of events was too speculative.

The plaintiffs separately claimed associational standing on behalf of pediatrician members, including Dr. Robert Sears. The court held that the complaint did not adequately allege that these members suffered concrete and particularized injuries. Their concerns about the lack of research were, as pleaded, generalized grievances shared by the medical community. The court also treated a separate theory involving parent members as abandoned because the plaintiffs did not defend it in their opposition papers. The court treated the plaintiffs’ theory based on reputational harm as abandoned for the same reason.

Disposition

Because none of the plaintiffs’ standing theories satisfied the Constitution’s case-or-controversy requirement, the court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted the Secretary’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court did not reach the Secretary’s Rule 12(b)(6) arguments about whether the complaint stated a statutory claim. The clerk was directed to close the case.