The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear the online censorship case, Missouri v. Biden, raised by both Missouri and Louisiana challenging the legality of the Biden Administration calling upon Social Media platforms to remove and/or suppress posts. But there is a catch. The court has also lifted a lower court’s injunction that was preventing the Federal government from working with the tech giants, allowing Biden’s team to resume its collusion with social media to censor free speech on their platforms.
The order was put in place by the Fifth Circuit Court “To prevent the continuation of this campaign, these officials were enjoined from either “coerc[ing]” social media companies to engage in such censorship or “active[ly] control[ling]” those companies’ decisions about the content posted on their platforms.”
According to the unsigned order of the Supreme Court issued Friday, Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neal Gorsuch dissented from the decision to ‘stay’ or remove the order.
In his utterly blistering dissent, Justice Alito writes that in order to be granted a ‘stay’ or a reversal of the lower court’s order the U.S. Government needed to prove “irreparable harm” would result from the order being enforced and failed to do so.
“Despite the Government’s conspicuous failure to establish a threat of irreparable harm, the majority stays the injunction and thus allows the defendants to persist in committing the type of First Amendment violations that the lower courts identified.”
The originating July court order of Trump-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty left little room for equivocation with a clear condemnation of the Democrat-led government’s actions.
Doughty wrote, “Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it in terms of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario.”
“During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.'”
Doughty’s ruling was later upheld by a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, although the court did limit how many government-affiliated offices were affected by the ruling.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailed pointed out at the time, “Here the Court notes that the feds engaged in a “broad pressure campaign designed to coerce social media companies into suppressing content disfavored by the government”
Here the Court points out that Joe Biden’s staff used the power of his Office to coerce media companies into censoring speech pic.twitter.com/KD5bHflI0y
— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) September 9, 2023
Alito noted in his dissent, “The majority takes this action in the face of the lower courts’ detailed findings of fact, adding “the majority suspends the relief afforded below without a word of explanation.”
According to The Washington Examiner, the case will be heard in the Court’s next term which ends in June, but in the meanwhile, the restrictions placed upon the Biden White House by Judge Doughty’s order will be lifted.
“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,”
BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Missouri v. Biden, a signifiant free speech case involving the Biden administration's urging of media platforms to censor online speech. pic.twitter.com/qdfsBUCtPT
— Kaelan Deese (@KaelanDC) October 20, 2023
The case was initially filed by Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) during his time as Attorney General of Missouri. He posted his anticipation for the SCOTUS hearing on X saying, “The nation’s highest court will hear one of the most important free speech cases in a generation. I’m proud to have filed this case when I was AG, and will always defend free speech.”
Louisiana Solicitor General Liz Murrill remarked, “This grants us an opportunity to affirm once and for all that the government is not permitted to use the government-speech doctrine to muffle the expression of disfavored viewpoints. We look forward to making our arguments soon.”