AAPS Sues to Stop U.S. Government from Electronically Tracking Certain American Workers

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), a pro-patient association of physicians and surgeons, has filed a preliminary injunction in Texas in an attempt to stop a government mandate compelling Americans to disclose personal information to a national and international electronic database.¹ The new mandate would demand that managers of small medical practices, political entities and certain non-profits and businesses give their home addresses, driver’s license numbers, birthdate and other personal information to the federal government.

The collected private information would be entered into an electronic database run by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and shared with other government agencies without any findings of wrong doings by the business or non-profit organization. The database may be shared internationally. The personal information would allegedly be used to help further federal investigations and prosecutions. Personal information submitted to the FinCEN database will be retained for a minimum of five years after the entity is no longer in business or operational.^{2 3}

Political Entities, Small Medical Practices, Certain Non-Profits Targeted by Government

Managers of some political entities, small medical practices and certain non-profit organizations are among the entities targeted by the new mandate.⁴ FinCEN estimates that the mandate would apply to 32.6 million existing entities as well as the additional approximately five million new entities that are expected to be formed each year.⁵

Every entity reporting private information to FinCen will obtain a FinCEN identifier. The penalty for not timely reporting any information, even failing to reporting a change of address, includes two years imprisonment and fines up to $10,000.⁶

Plaintiffs include AAPS, two managers of political organizations, a doctor and a gun owner concerned that he could lose his right to own a gun should he fail to report any information to FinCEN. They filed a preliminary injunction to immediately put an end to this mandate, which is set to go into effect on Jan.1, 2025.⁷ A preliminary Injunction is an order issued by a judge at the start of a lawsuit that aims to protect the status quo by preventing the defendant from taking certain action or requiring the defendant to take certain that is the subject of the lawsuit.⁸

Plaintiffs allege that the mandate violates their First Amendment right of free speech and freedom of association, their Fourth Amendment right to not provide personal information without a warrant, and their Fifth Amendment Rights as the mandate is vague and uncertain and failure to abide by it could result in up to two years in jail.⁹

Another State Court Has Already Struck Down the Electronic Tracking Mandate

A similar case was brought in Alabama. The plaintiff, an Ohio non-profit that protects small business rights in the U.S., brought a motion for summary judgment to stop the government’s mandate to collect private information. A summary judgment motion is brought when one party alleges that a trial is not necessary as the other side has no valid claims or defenses for the judge or jury to consider. The moving party argues that they are required to a judgment as a matter of law due to there being “no genuine issues as to any material fact.”¹⁰

The U.S. District Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment finding there was no genuine issue of material fact and the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as matter of law. The court struck down the mandate finding it was unconstitutional as it exceeded the enumerated powers of Congress.

The Court rejected the government’s arguments that the U.S. Constitution granted Congress the power to enforce the mandate due to the Necessary and Proper clause, the Commerce Clause and their power to tax.

The Court pointed out that the novel mandate was not supported by precedent…

For starters, the most telling indication of [a] severe constitutional problem… is the lack of historical precedent for Congress’s action. NFIB, 567 U.S. at 549. The Court cannot find, and the parties have not identified, any other State or federal law like the CTA.¹¹

AAPS General Counsel Andrew Schlafly stated:

This is a vast expansion in federal police power, with its political bias that has worsened. Fortunately, multiple provisions of the U.S. Constitution stand firmly against this federal overreach.¹²

If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.