A federal judge has temporarily halted proceedings in Murthy v. Missouri, a case central to efforts aimed at curbing government involvement in online censorship, following a Supreme Court decision that declined to address the case’s core arguments.
On Tuesday, US District Judge Terry Doughty approved a motion from the defendants — former President Joe Biden and key administration officials — to stay the case. According to Jenin Younes, litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, the pause was granted in light of former President Donald Trump’s recent executive order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.”
We obtained a copy of the order for you here.
“The government suggested that we move to stay discovery,” Younes told The Federalist. “They want to put in a statement about what effect they think the executive order has. I’m guessing they’re going to say it makes the case moot.”
If the judge agrees, the case could be dismissed as moot after President Trump’s new order. While plaintiffs went along with the stay to allow the judge time to review, Younes noted that the broader concern over government-driven censorship remains a live issue.
“We haven’t staked out our position yet, but there are arguments against mootness,” she said. “Especially if there’s a chance that could happen again and the executive order won’t necessarily be binding on a subsequent administration.”
Initially known as Missouri v. Biden, the lawsuit—brought by the states of Missouri and Louisiana—accused Biden administration officials of working with Big Tech to suppress online speech. The case unearthed extensive evidence showing how federal agencies collaborated with private platforms to censor topics ranging from The New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story to alternative viewpoints on the COVID-19 vaccine.
