The Biden-Harris administration is now on its way out – but the damage that opponents say it has done to free speech continues to reverberate, including in difficult legal battles.
The plaintiffs in one of those – Kennedy v. Biden – have suffered a setback, as the Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeals on Monday decided against allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Children’s Health Defense (CHD), Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Connie Sampognaro are seeking to sue the Biden White House for alleged censorship, including around topics related to the origin of Covid and vaccines.
We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.
The censorship, the plaintiffs claim, played out as the government pressured social platforms to implement it – which would be an instance of unconstitutional activity.
But the appellate court said the plaintiffs had no legal standing – i.e., had not provided sufficient reason for the judge to believe they suffered direct and concrete injuries, which can be rectified in a legal process.
The decision was made despite CHD suffering, among other things, deplatforming as “punishment” for the position the non-profit took on various issues.
This overturns the ruling announced in August by the US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, which said those suing do have standing and should be allowed to pursue the case.
The lawsuit was originally filed in March 2023 and accuses the government and its agencies of engaging in a pressure campaign aimed at major social networks and the companies behind them, to censor what is constitutionally protected speech.
The filing refers to this campaign as “systematic.”
CHD said it was now considering what next steps to take, while the organization’s general counsel, Kim Mack Rosenberg commented on the Fifth Circuit’s decision to express disappointment and note that the group believes the evidence the court had at its disposal “more than sufficiently established standing for Children’s Health Defense.”
Rosenberg explained that this new evidence that amended the case during the appeals stage demonstrated “ongoing censorship activities by the government,” as well as that “the government has a significant and improper role in the social media platforms’ censorship of CHD.”
Kennedy v. Biden shares discovery and evidence with Murthy v. Missouri, but is otherwise a separate case.
