WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has issued a full block of a lower court ruling that would have restricted the Biden administration’s ability to engage with social media companies on controversial topics like Covid-19.
In a short unsigned order, the Supreme Court temporarily suspends a judgment made by a Louisiana-based judge in July, which sought to prevent certain agencies and officials from meeting with companies to discuss the restriction of specific content.
The Supreme Court has also agreed to expeditiously hear the government’s appeal, indicating that arguments and a decision will be made within the current term, ending in June.
While three conservative justices expressed dissent — Samuel Alito, , and Neil Gorsuch — the court’s overall decision has significant implications for government communications on online platforms.
Alito expressed concern that the ruling could be misconstrued as giving the government the authority to manipulate the presentation of news on the dominant online medium. He wrote, “At this time in the history of our country, what the court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news. That is most unfortunate.”
The lawsuit against the U.S. government was initiated by GOP attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, as well as five social media users. They argued that government officials exceeded their authority by coercing social media companies to address posts about Covid-19, particularly those expressing opposition to lockdown measures. One of the plaintiffs is Jim Hoft, the owner of the right-wing website Gateway Pundit.
The lawsuit is centered on claims that the government’s actions violated the free speech protections of the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey stated, “This is the worst First Amendment violation in our nation’s history. We look forward to dismantling ‘s vast censorship enterprise at the nation’s highest court.”
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice declined to comment on the Supreme Court’s decision.
The lawsuit encompasses allegations from 2020 and earlier, including efforts to combat the spread of Covid-19 misinformation and false information about the presidential election. Notably, the district court’s ruling focused on actions taken by the government following President Joe Biden’s inauguration in January 2021.
Judge Terry Doughty, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, prohibited officials from engaging in any form of communication with social media companies to influence the removal or suppression of content protected by free speech.
While the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed the scope of Doughty’s injunction, it still restricted the White House, the FBI, and top health officials from coercing or significantly encouraging social media companies to remove content that the Biden administration considers to be misinformation.
Officials affected by the injunction would have included White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy.
The Biden administration sought a complete suspension of Doughty’s ruling by appealing to the Supreme Court.
Prior to the Supreme Court’s intervention, the district court’s ruling had been put on hold.
The Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, argued in court documents that Doughty’s decision was unprecedented and contradicted fundamental principles of federal law. She stated that the injunction significantly limited the ability of the President’s closest aides to address matters of public concern, hindered the FBI’s response to national security threats, and impeded the CDC’s dissemination of public health information.
Prelogar further contended that the original injunction was overly broad, encompassing thousands of federal officers and employees, and affecting communication with all social media platforms regarding content moderation related to topics such as national security and criminal issues.
The lawyers representing the states and plaintiffs argued in court papers that the lower courts had identified “egregious, systematic First Amendment violations” committed by the government, namely the pressure placed on social media companies to censor viewpoints that were disfavored.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
