Government Documents Expose Unconstitutional Arrests of Physicians in Massive Operations

In a shocking turn of events, the U.S. Government, in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation in the case of Neil Anand et al. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Civil Action No. 21-1635), revealed a startling truth that will have far-reaching consequences for physicians across the United States. The government’s admission, concealed for years, unraveled a series of mass arrests in operations that have been likened to infamous historical events.

Numerous physicians across the United States were arrested in a single day during massive, seemingly unconstitutional operations. These operations, bearing ominous names like Operation Pill Nation, Operation Snake Oil, Operation Oxy Alley, Operation Juice Doctor, and Operation Wasted Daze, have drawn comparisons to the infamous Nazi operation, Kristallnacht, or the Night of Broken Glass, which targeted Jewish physicians.

The bombshell revelation came through Robin Brooks, Director of Freedom of Information, who disclosed a shocking amount of previously confidential information in her letter to Dr. Neil Anand. Brooks unveiled that the government had concealed crucial information related to the Pill Mill Doctor Project, a United States “Manhattan Project” colossal effort in solving the U.S. Opioid Crisis. The disclosure included eight-hundred-thirty-five pages of records responsive to Anand’s FOIA request, of which only sixty-one pages were released in their entirety. The rest of the documents contained numerous redactions, withholding essential information under various exemptions like Exemption 3, Exemption 4, Exemption 6, Exemption 7C, and Exemption 7E of the FOIA.

However, the most significant revelation from these government documents is the exoneration of physicians involved in opioid prescribing. The U.S. Surgeon General’s admissions, contained in the official government documents produced pursuant to the FOIA, unequivocally prove that opioid prescribing physicians did not engage in criminal activity in violation of the Controlled Substance Act. These admissions confirm that the defendants and other similarly situated physicians could not have formulated the necessary intent to participate in a criminal act under the Controlled Substance Act.

The government documents reveal the historical context that may have contributed to increased opioid prescribing in the United States. Physicians, driven by good intentions and erroneous Government training and teaching, prescribed opioids to manage pain, believing they were safe and effective. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy’s admissions in the documents underscored the dire consequences of Government misinformation and misguided practices. The Government’s role in promoting the use of opioids as a pain management solution and the Fifth Vital Sign has been unveiled, emphasizing the importance of considering the circumstances that led to the increase in opioid prescribing.

The legal implications of this revelation are profound. The United States Supreme Court’s precedent in cases such as Raley v. State of Ohio, Lanzetta v. State of New Jersey, and United States v. Cardiff reaffirms that the government cannot sanction the most indefensible form of entrapment by actively misleading its citizens. The government’s failure to provide clear guidance to physicians and, in some cases, actively promoting the use of opioids has now come under scrutiny. These Supreme Court precedents suggest that citizens may not be punished for actions undertaken in good faith reliance upon authoritative assurances that punishment will not attach, especially when they operate under vague, undefined, or contradictory commands.

In conclusion, the shocking revelation of government documents through FOIA litigation in the case of Neil Anand et al. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has brought to light the government’s role in opioid prescribing and raises serious questions about the legality of the arrests of physicians. The government’s conduct, which amounts to “active misleading,” may have far-reaching legal consequences for those arrested in the massive healthcare operations. The fallout from these revelations is likely to shape the future of healthcare practices and law in the United States, and could potentially lead to the exoneration of physicians who were unjustly targeted in these operations.