Murthy v. Missouri
Murthy v. Missouri | |
---|---|
Court membership | |
|
Murthy v. Missouri (originally filed as Missouri v. Biden) is a case pending in the
On July 4, 2023, Judge
Background
Since around 2020,
In 2022,
Filing and depositions
The lawsuit alleges that President Joe Biden and his administration were "working with social media giants such as Meta, Twitter, and YouTube to censor and suppress free speech, including truthful information, related to COVID-19, election integrity, and other topics, under the guise of combating 'misinformation'."[8] The lawsuit was co-filed with Louisiana's Attorney General Jeff Landry in May 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Additional plaintiffs were added several months later, including Jim Hoft, owner of The Gateway Pundit, a conservative publication,[9] and Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, academics who co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which questioned the government's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.[10]
The plaintiffs obtained subpoenas in October and November 2022 from former and current members of the Biden administration, including Anthony Fauci, who served as Chief Medical Advisor to the President; Karine Jean-Pierre, who was the White House Press Secretary; and Kate Starbird, who served as an academic advisor to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.[9][11] The government attempted to block these deposition requests, but only a few such requests were granted.[12] Fauci attended a deposition in November 2022, which Schmitt claimed proved that social media censored content based on what Fauci said during the pandemic.[13]
Preliminary injunction
Hearings for the case were held in May 2023. Judge Doughty issued his ruling on July 4, 2023, issuing a
Government agencies covered by the injunction included the
The U.S. Department of Justice filed its intent to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit the next day.[16] The Department of Justice sought a stay of Doughty's injunction, saying that it would prevent them from "working with social media companies on initiatives to prevent grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes" ahead of the 2024 elections.[18] Legal experts, speaking to Reuters, said that while the case has merit, Doughty's preliminary injunction will face tough legal challenges on appeal.[19] On July 14, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted a temporary administrative stay of the injunction until further order.[20]
Appellate decision
On September 8, 2023, the Fifth Circuit ruling upheld the district court ruling against the Biden administration. The court found that some of the communications between the federal government and the social media companies to try to fight alleged COVID-19 misinformation "coerced or significantly encouraged social media platforms to moderate content", which violated the First Amendment.[21] But the court also ruled that Doughty's preliminary injunction was too broad, as it blocked some legal social media content created by government, and narrowed the injunction to prevent the government from taking "actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech. That includes, but is not limited to, compelling the platforms to act, such as by intimating that some form of punishment will follow a failure to comply with any request, or supervising, directing, or otherwise meaningfully controlling the social-media companies' decision-making processes."[21][22] The court placed enforcement of the injunction on hold for ten days to allow any appeals to be filed.[21][23] Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito granted a temporary stay of the order on September 14, 2023, lasting initially until September 23 and then extended to September 27, to give both parties the ability to argue further on the appeal.[24][25] The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals expanded the injunction issued in September to include the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), ruling that it used frequent interactions with social media platforms "to push them to adopt more restrictive policies on election-related speech".[26]
Supreme Court
In October 2023, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Murthy v. Missouri.[27] The Court also lifted the injunctions set by the lower courts, allowing the federal government to continue to contact social media companies without restrictions while the case continues. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the lifting of the injunctions, with Alito writing, "Government censorship of private speech is antithetical to our democratic form of government, and therefore today's decision is highly disturbing."[28] The Court heard oral argument on March 18, 2024.[29]
References
- ^ U.S. News and World Report.
- ^ Wicentowski, Danny (October 26, 2022). "How AG Schmitt's lawsuit is using the First Amendment to get to Dr. Fauci". KWMU. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
- ^ "Trump Says 'Twitter Files' Bolster Case Jan. 6 Ban Was Illegal". Bloomberg.com. May 4, 2023. Retrieved September 10, 2023 – via www.bloomberg.com.
- ^ Fung, Brian (June 6, 2023). "Twitter's own lawyers refute Elon Musk's claim that the 'Twitter Files' exposed US government censorship". CNN. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
- ^ Myers, Steven Lee (February 9, 2023). "Free Speech vs. Disinformation Comes to a Head". The New York Times. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
- ^ "'A mockery and a disgrace': Key takeaways from House GOP hearing on social media censorship". Yahoo News. March 30, 2023.
- Missouri Independent. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
- ^ "Missouri, Louisiana AGs File Suit Against President Biden, Top Admin Officials for Allegedly Colluding with Social Media Giants to Censor and Suppress Free Speech". Eric Schmitt. May 5, 2022. Archived from the original on May 6, 2022. Retrieved July 5, 2023.
- ^ Missouri Independent. Retrieved July 6, 2023.
- ^ Myers, Steven Lee; McCabe, David (July 4, 2023). "Federal Judge Limits Biden Officials' Contacts With Social Media Sites". The New York Times. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
- ^ Desrochers, Daniel. "Judge says Fauci, Jean-Pierre have to turn over emails to social media companies to Schmitt". Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on September 7, 2022.
- Missouri Independent. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
- ^ Schemmel, Alec (December 6, 2022). "Fauci said 'I don't recall' 174 times during deposition about collusion with social media". WPDE-TV. The National Desk. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
- ^ a b Myers, Steven Lee; McCabe, David (July 4, 2023). "Federal Judge Limits Biden Officials' Contacts With Social Media Sites" – via NYTimes.com.
- ^ Lawler, Richard (July 4, 2023). "US judge blocks Biden officials from contacting social media sites". The Verge.
- ^ a b c Wamsley, Laurel; Bond, Shannon (July 5, 2023). "U.S. is barred from combating disinformation on social media. Here's what it means". NPR. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
- Associated Press News. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
- Washington Post. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
- ^ Pierson, Brendan; Goudsward, Andrew (July 6, 2023). "Order limiting Biden officials' social media outreach on shaky legal ground, experts say". Reuters. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
- Washington Post. Retrieved July 14, 2023.
- ^ a b c Snead, Tierney (September 8, 2023). "Appeals court says Biden admin likely violated First Amendment but narrows order blocking officials from communicating with social media companies". CNN. Retrieved September 9, 2023.
- ^ "Free Speech, Social Media Firms, and the Fifth Circuit". September 10, 2023.
- ^ Guynn, Jessica (September 8, 2023). "Biden administration coerced social media giants into possible free speech violations: court". USA Today. Archived from the original on September 12, 2023.
- ^ Storh, Greg; Brimbaum, Emily (September 14, 2023). "Supreme Court Pauses Curbs on Biden Social Media Contacts". Bloomberg News. Retrieved September 14, 2023.
- ^ "No. 23A243: Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General, et al., Applicants v. Missouri, et al". supremecourt.gov. Retrieved November 5, 2023.
- ^ "Federal appeals court expands limits on Biden administration in First Amendment case". USA Today. October 3, 2023. Retrieved November 5, 2023.
- ^ Feiner, Lauren (March 15, 2024). "SCOTUS to hear case on how much the government can talk to social media companies". The Verge.
- ^ Liptak, Adam (October 20, 2023). "Supreme Court Lifts Limits for Now on Biden Officials' Contacts With Tech Platforms". The New York Times. Retrieved October 20, 2023.
- ^ Supreme Court hears arguments on First Amendment cases CNN. March 18, 2024.
External links
- The initial decision of the court of appeals (September 3, 2023), later withdrawn and substituted (October 3, 2023).
- The district court's injunction and memorandum (July 4, 2023) (via CourtListener).