(CN) — A federal judge who last week put restraints on the Biden administration’s communications with social media companies refused on Monday to stay his order following a request from the administration to do just that.
The Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana — along with a group of private citizens — last year sued President Joe Biden and leaders of several federal agencies, claiming they'd coerced social media companies into suppressing First Amendment-protected speech about Covid-19 vaccines and the 2020 presidential election.
U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee, sided with them, issuing a 155-page on July 4 that likened the United States government's efforts to combat online misinformation to those of "an Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth.'"
As part of that ruling, Doughty issued a preliminary injunction barring the administration from contacting social-media companies to pressure them into deleting or suppressing any protected speech posted on their platforms. The order impacts the Justice Department, Treasury Department, State Department, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, FBI and leaders of the agencies.
The Biden administration appealed the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans on July 5. The next day, it filed a motion with Doughty asking him to stay his order until the appeal is resolved — a standard request when a higher court is set to consider a case.
The Justice Department claims Doughty’s injunction is vague because it does not clarify what conduct is barred or what entities and individuals it covers. The administration also argues that the order from Doughty, who serves as chief judge of the Western District of Louisiana, is too broad and will chill a wide range of lawful government actions, such as promoting its policies online or working with social-media firms on criminal investigations.
On Monday, Doughty denied the stay motion with an order citing instances of what he said was social-media meddling by the government.
These examples, Doughty argued, showed the states of Missouri and Louisiana, along with other private-citizen plaintiffs, are likely to prevail on their claims — dashing the Biden administration's hopes for a stay. Among the plaintiffs is Jim Hoft, owner of the far-right website The Gateway Pundit, a frequent peddler of misinformation.
According to Doughty’s latest order, in January 2021 — just days after Biden took office — the White House’s digital director for its Covid-19 response team emailed Twitter and asked it to take down an anti-Covid vaccine tweet by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Kennedy, member of the famous political family of the same name, is an environmental lawyer and anti-vaccine activist. This April, he announced he is running for president as a Democrat.
Doughty cited other examples, too. In April 2021, he wrote, a White House deputy assistant to Biden demanded Facebook censor a video of then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson saying Covid vaccines don’t work. Although the video did not violate Facebook’s policies, Facebook nonetheless reduced the video's reach on its platform, Doughty stated.
Doughty also said the feds overstepped when the Center for Disease Control and Prevention gave Facebook a presentation concerning the veracity of claims about Covid-19.
“Some of the items designated as false by the CDC Defendants included medically debatable topics such as whether COVID-19 had a 99.96% survival rate, whether COVID-19 vaccines weaken the immune system, and the safety of COVID-19 vaccines,” Doughty wrote in a 13-page order. At least some of these claims — including the safety of Covid-19 vaccines — are not in fact considered debatable in the mainstream medical community.
The Biden administration contends it is likely to win on appeal because none of the plaintiffs have presented any evidence they are currently being censored on social media at the behest of the White House or other federal agencies.
In fact, the administration argues, the bulk of the plaintiffs’ complaints pertain to actions the government took more than a year ago.
Doughty disagreed that the plaintiffs’ claims are stale and refuted the feds’ concerns his injunction is too broad.
He noted his order has a long list of subjects the administration can still talk to social media companies about, including posts involving criminal activity and national-security threats and those intended to mislead voters about voting regulations. The White House can also still promote its policies and views on matters of public concern, he said.
Instead, Doughty argued, his current injunction "only bars illegal conduct." Therefore, the "only effect" of a stay, he wrote, would be in freeing federal officials to "urge, encourage, pressure, or induce the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech on social-media platforms.”
Follow @cam_langford
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
School abuse April 26, 2024 -
Treble trouble April 26, 2024