Court Blocks Ruling That Barred Biden Admin From Demanding Social Media Censorship

U.S. President Joe Biden speaks during a press conference with UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in the East Room of the White House in Washington on June 8, 2023. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

A federal appeals court has handed the Biden administration a temporary victory by agreeing to put a temporary hold on an earlier ruling by a district court that prohibited a range of federal agencies and their staff from contacting social media companies with requests to censor constitutionally protected free speech.

On Friday, a three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans issued a decision granting the Biden administration’s request to put the censorship-by-proxy ban on hold.

The “temporary administrative stay” will be in place until the case is referred to a different appeals panel, which will deliberate on the merits of a ruling that barred Biden administration officials from pressuring social media companies to censor free speech.

The DOJ told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement that it was not providing any comment on Friday’s decision.

Friday’s decision is the latest chapter in a saga that was sparked by a censorship-by-proxy lawsuit brought by Louisiana and Missouri against Biden administration agencies and top officials after evidence emerged that various federal agencies and some of their senior staff pressured social media companies to censor Americans’ free speech.

Historic Ruling

On July 4, Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a ruling (pdf) that various government agencies, including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the State Department, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are prohibited from taking a range of actions regarding social media companies.

Specifically, the agencies and their staff members are prohibited from meeting or contacting by phone, email, or text message or “engaging in any communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech,” per the injunction.

The agencies are also barred from flagging content on posts on social media platforms and forwarding them to the companies with requests for action such as removing or otherwise suppressing their reach.

Encouraging or otherwise egging on social media companies to change their guidelines for the removal, suppression, or reduction of content that contains protected free speech by the government also isn’t allowed.

“This could be arguably one of the most important First Amendment cases in modern history,” Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, one of the plaintiffs, told EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” in an interview following the ruling.

“If you look at the opinion that the judge lays out, he takes from our argument that this is basically one of the most massive undertakings of the federal government to limit American speech in the history of our country,“ Mr. Landry continued. ”The things that we uncovered, in this case, should be both shocking, appalling, and concerning for all Americans.”

However, Mr. Doughty did make some exceptions in his order, allowing government officials to contact social media companies to alert them of criminal activity or threats to national security.

Also allowed are contacts notifying social media companies about posts intending to mislead voters about voting requirements or procedures, as well as communicating with companies about suppressing posts that aren’t protected free speech.

The injunction pertains to various named agencies as well as their agents, officers, employees, and contractors.

Biden Admin Appeals

A day after Mr. Doughty’s July 4 ruling, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an appeal, asking the courts to overturn the social media contact ban, arguing that the injunction was too broad and difficult to implement, and could prevent federal agencies from engaging with social media companies for legitimate reasons like fighting crime.

On July 10, Mr. Doughty denied the DOJ’s request to stay his earlier ruling, rejecting the Biden administration’s argument that the order could put a damper on law enforcement activity online.

“Although this Preliminary Injunction involves numerous agencies, it is not as broad as it appears,” Mr. Doughty wrote on July 10. “It only prohibits something the Defendants have no legal right to do—contacting social media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner, the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms.”

The judge further wrote that Republican attorneys general who brought the suit are most likely going to prevail in proving that federal agencies and officials “significantly encouraged,” “coerced,” or “jointly participated” in allegedly suppressing social media posts that included information critical of COVID-19 vaccines or questioned the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

In response, lawyers for the Biden administration’s DOJ filed an emergency stay of the injunction at the 5th U.S. District Court of Appeals, arguing that Mr. Doughty’s ruling was too vague and broad.

Afterward, the attorneys general for Missouri and Louisiana submitted a petition to oppose the DOJ’s motion to stay Mr. Doughty’s initial ban on the Biden administration’s ability to contact social media companies with requests to take down content featuring constitutionally protected speech.

Friday’s ruling by the appeals court did not elaborate on the rationale for granting the temporary administrative stay against Mr. Doughty’s initial injunction.