Interesting case in which the usual issues surrounding the retraction of a journal article are further complicated by a NY state law criminalizing the distribution of information that endangers health.
https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/02/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329/

PS: Apart from the specific issues raised by this case (whether a certain antidepressant is safe and effective for teenagers), I'm interested in this more general question: Do US journals have a #FirstAmendment right not to retract articles, regardless of the circumstances, for example, even when the articles have been shown to be false and harmful and even when local law prohibits the distribution of such information? Is "forced retraction" a kind of #censorship prohibited by the Constitution?

Before you comment, note that this cases raises a lot of important questions about our tolerance for harm. But I'm trying to raise a slightly different question about the interaction of scholarly norms and public law.

#Law #Retractions #USLaw

Judge tosses lawsuit over controversial Paxil ‘Study 329’

A judge has dismissed a legal challenge aimed at forcing Elsevier to retract a long-criticized study that concluded the antidepressant Paxil was safe and effective for teens. The 2001 paper, publis…

Retraction Watch
@petersuber I haven't read the full opinion yet, but I suspect that this week's _Chiles v. Salazar_ Supreme Court ruling might have something to say about those issues, either in the opinions, or in the cited cases: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539new_hfci.pdf. (This is the one that struck down Colorado's law banning conversion therapy, which involves local law prohibiting a speech-based treatment that the law's proponents consider "ineffective and harmful", to quote from Jackson's dissent.)
@JMarkOckerbloom
Good point. Yes, the two cases raise many of the same issues.