The Western District of Louisiana’s US District Court has ruled in favor of the State of Missouri, allowing additional discovery in the significant Missouri v. Biden lawsuit, which scrutinizes government collaboration in social media censorship. This decision comes after the Supreme Court, in June, overturned a prior injunction, then-named Murthy v. Missouri, which had prohibited entities including the White House, CDC, FBI, CISA, and the Surgeon General’s office from pressing social media platforms to suppress speech protected under the Constitution.
We obtained a copy of the order for you here.
Two leading epidemiologists also represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) are among the clients who claim to have been targeted in a wide-ranging censorship campaign, allegedly coordinated by multiple government bodies. The plaintiffs in the case—Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, Aaron Kheriaty, and Ms. Jill Hines were ruled by the Supreme Court as lacking sufficient standing.
Initial findings from the limited discovery available at the preliminary injunction stage revealed an extensive network of censorship involving more than a dozen agencies and over a hundred government officials, possibly implicating many more yet uncovered. These agencies were reportedly directed by the White House to manipulate social media content, particularly contradicting the federal government’s stances on issues from Covid-19 to electoral processes.
The depth of the Biden Administration’s involvement in these censorial activities likely would have remained hidden without this lawsuit. Although the merits of the case were not evaluated by the Supreme Court’s majority, Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch did comment on the Plaintiffs’ claims, finding the government’s actions to be a breach of the First Amendment.
With the district court’s recent decision to expand discovery, the NCLA’s clients are positioned to demonstrate the necessary standing to meet the Supreme Court’s criteria and potentially succeed in their claims.
“We now consistently proceed — burdened by what has been,” wrote US District Judge Terry A. Doughty, seemingly referencing a quote from unsuccessful Presidential candidate and current Vice President Kamala Harris.
Doughty continued: “The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the years-long communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social media platforms, about different topics. This Court’s standing doctrine prevents us from “exercis[ing such] general legal oversight” of the other branches of Government. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
The NCLA expressed optimism about the new ruling. “Thankfully, the District Court isn’t allowing the government to get away with its unlawful censorship enterprise by carrying it out in secret. We welcome the opportunity to show that the government was and continues to be responsible for censorship of our clients,” said Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel for NCLA, in a statement to Reclaim The Net.
