Missouri and Louisiana sued the federal government over COVID-19 pandemic policies they claim violated the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans by colluding with Big Tech to censor anyone who dissented from the official line.
“In May of last year, Missouri filed a landmark lawsuit against dozens of officials in the federal government to stop the biggest violation of the First Amendment in the history of this nation,” Missouri’s Attorney General Andrew Bailey told a House Oversight and Accountability Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic on June 21.
Elizabeth Murrill, Louisiana’s Solicitor General, agreed. She presented written testimony to the committee about her 17-year-old son’s reaction to the COVID vaccine. The teen was required to be vaccinated to take a camp counselor job. Thirty-six hours after his second dose, he was rushed to the emergency room.
He spent four days in the pediatric ICU and underwent several medical procedures, including a 15-hour medicine infusion. He left with a diagnosis of myocarditis and $100,000 in medical bills. As Murrill researched treatment options, she said it became clear that some medicines were off-limits.
“The censorship pushed by the federal government against these off-label drugs, the physicians who promoted them, and any form of vaccine hesitancy was vast and far-reaching,” Murrill told the committee.
“In fact, if I had posted on social media regarding my family’s experience with the COVID-19 vaccines, it is likely that I would have been censored.”
Misha Tseytlin, a partner with the law firm Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders said that, in one respect, Murrill’s son was fortunate that his family had the resources, skills, and ability to fight for him.
Tseytlin said he spent two years defending people with nowhere to turn for help. He told the committee about a disabled Illinois man who was forced from a job he had held for 20 years because the state “didn’t think it could trust disabled people to keep their masks on.”
The courts struck down that policy and others he fought, Tseytlin said. But, he said, many more people were subjected to conflicting and arbitrary rules with no recourse because they could not afford to go to court. He asked the committee to consider reforming the law to make it easier for individuals to take action if the government violates their rights.
“When the state violates your constitutional rights, the state should have to pay, not the individual,” he said.
One witness acknowledged that restrictions had been placed on religious services. But, he said they were necessary to prevent the spread of the virus. He said this was especially important early in the pandemic when little was known about how the virus spread and what could be done to treat it.
“In the Jewish tradition, the principle of “pikuach nefesh”—the saving of a life—overrides all other commandments,” said Micah Schwartzman, professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.
Schwartzman told the committee that the pandemic restrictions were burdensome for everyone. He said the country was dealing with a virus that few people knew anything about. He said it was incumbent upon all people of faith to set aside their desires for the community.
“We did it to save lives. That was in accordance with the rule of law and with our religious obligations,” Schwartzman said. “It’s easy to forget how dire things were.”
He said the virus was responsible for more than 1 million deaths. According to Schwartzman, public health officials were trying to balance rights against the danger posed by the virus. So they had to determine which types of contact posed the most significant risks.
Schwartzman said the government had a compelling interest in protecting the public, and the Constitution recognizes that some rights might have to be limited to ensure everyone’s rights are protected.
The Missouri Attorney General’s office has over 20,000 documents about the government’s pandemic response, said Bailey. In addition, he told the committee he has deposed numerous officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, officials from the FBI, U.S. State Department, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Surgeon General, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“These documents reveal specific incidents of federal officials unlawfully pressuring Big Tech companies to take down constitutionally protected speech: Backed by overt and implicit threats of legal retribution,” Bailey, a Republican, told the committee.
Select Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) said the government’s pandemic policies were “unnecessary and arbitrary.” He said it’s important to look at everything that happened during the pandemic and not just focus on specific data points.
Focus on Saving Lives
Ranking Member Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.) took issue with the claims that the policies were arbitrary. He said the guidelines were based on “basic science.” He said officials did the best with the information they had at the time.“Public health officials knew what would help. Their sole focus was on saving lives and reducing harm,” he said.
Ruiz said the criticisms raised attempted to weaponize the committee’s work. He said it is time to get past the debate and learn from the pandemic. He said the policies were not intended to discriminate against anyone or limit individuals’ rights.
“This kind of partisan rhetoric needs to stop. This was not an attack on faith,” Ruiz said.
Wenstrup said it appears that favoritism played a role in the policy decisions.
“The right to peacefully assemble appeared to be held up for some, but not others,” Wenstrup said.
Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) said Orthodox Jews in New York were subjected to those decisions. She said that Black Lives Matter riots were encouraged by the same public officials who told the Jewish community and others that they could not gather.
“This is not science; this is hypocrisy,” she said.
Bailey said the evidence uncovered in his state’s lawsuit shows the pandemic became an avenue for the government to force Big Tech to put in place systems and policies to deal with dissent.
“It’s a vast censorship enterprise that goes beyond COVID. COVID was the Trojan Horse, COVID was the excuse to get the enemy behind the wall, and it’s now spreading.” he said.
“We need a wall of separation between Tech and State.”
