WASHINGTON - A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against twenty U.S. Senators brought by the company that once operated more than 31 hospitals around the country, including three here in the valley.

U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden has dismissed the complaint filed by former Steward Health CEO Dr. Ralph de la Torre against members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

The ruling, issued Tuesday, concluded that the court did not have the authority to hear the case because the actions of the senators were protected under the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause.

The lawsuit stemmed from a Senate investigation into the bankruptcy of Steward Health Care System, where de la Torre had served as founder, chairman, and chief executive officer for nearly 15 years. The company, which was described as the largest physician-led, minority-owned health care system in the country, filed for bankruptcy in the spring of 2024.

The bankruptcy led to Steward selling off most of its hospitals, including the former Trumbull Regional and Hillside hospitals in Trumbull County, and Sharon Regional Medical Center in Mercer County.

In July 2024, the HELP Committee, formerly chaired by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, opened an investigation into the company's financial decisions and how they had affected patient care and hospital operations. De la Torre was asked to testify at a hearing on the matter. He declined to appear voluntarily, prompting the committee to issue a subpoena.

In a letter to the committee, de la Torre stated that he would not be able to attend the hearing and said he was invoking his Fifth Amendment rights. He also cited a separate federal court order that he said prevented him from revealing certain information from the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. The committee rejected these explanations, stating that a person must appear before a congressional committee to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights in response to specific questions, rather than as a blanket refusal to testify.

The committee and its members then publicly criticized de la Torre. Sen. Sanders released a statement saying he intended to "hold Dr. de la Torre accountable for his greed" and called Steward Health Care an "elaborate Ponzi scheme". De la Torre did not attend the hearing, during which Sen. Sanders called him "the poster child for this outrageous type of corporate greed that is permeating our for-profit healthcare system".

Following the hearing, the committee unanimously passed civil and criminal resolutions of contempt against de la Torre. The criminal resolution was sent to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for possible presentation to a grand jury, and the civil resolution authorized the Senate Legal Counsel to file a lawsuit to enforce the subpoena. The Senate later approved the criminal contempt resolution in a voice vote.

De la Torre subsequently resigned as chief executive of Steward Health and filed a lawsuit against the committee and 20 of its members. In the suit, he asked the court to declare the subpoena was not for a valid legislative purpose and to prevent the committee from taking further action against him.

The defendants, including the committee and senators, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution protected their actions. They argued that the clause grants members of Congress and their staff immunity from lawsuits for their legislative activities, which include issuing subpoenas, holding committee hearings, and voting on resolutions.

Judge McFadden's memorandum opinion sided with the committee, stating that the actions challenged by the defendants were considered "legislative acts" and were therefore immune from judicial review.

The judge noted that the power of Congress to investigate is broad and that the committee's inquiry into the bankruptcy of Steward Health Care was "facially legislative" because it was related to the committee's assigned duties concerning health, education, and public welfare.

The judge also rejected de la Torre's argument that the investigation lacked legislative purpose because the committee knew he would not testify. The court's opinion stated that the relevant question was whether the committee was inquiring into a matter where new laws could be made, and that the answer to that was "incontrovertibly yes".

The ruling also denied de la Torre's request for jurisdictional discovery, stating that such a request was not supported by the facts or legal precedent.

The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning de la Torre could refile the case if new information or circumstances were to arise.