A federal judge kept alive a lawsuit accusing the federal government of encouraging social media platforms to censor users’ views.
The judge ruled that the two states that filed the lawsuit can continue their discovery, a pretrial phase that allows litigants to gather evidence for trial and can consist of examinations under oath and requests for documents.
The states sued the federal government for censorship because it allegedly pressured social media companies to suppress certain content.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy issued a public statement encouraging the social media platforms to prevent information about COVID-19 that had been deemed misinformation by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “from taking hold.” The FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency also communicated with the platforms about election-related misinformation in advance of the 2020 presidential election and the 2022 congressional elections.
Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. The parties must show a strong enough connection to the law or action complained of to justify their participation in the lawsuit.
The states argue that the Biden administration strong-armed social media companies into censoring disfavored views on important public issues, such as potential side effects related to COVID-19 vaccines and pandemic lockdowns. They say that applying this kind of pressure violates Americans’ First Amendment rights.
Conservatives and others have complained that social media platforms suppress information about their views on transgender issues, COVID-19, and the 2020 election.
Some on the left say removing posts on social media is necessary to prevent the spread of misinformation, and some have complained that social media platforms don’t do enough to combat falsehoods.
Doughty, whose 2023 ruling blocking the federal government from communicating with the social media companies was overturned by the Supreme Court in June, said in his new order that he considered it appropriate to ask the litigants whether there should be further discovery. The discovery would be related to the issue of standing to help the court evaluate if it has authority to continue with this case, or if the lawsuit should be dismissed.
The states argued for discovery, while the federal government argued for dismissal, he said.
“We currently find ourselves in jurisdictional purgatory—caught between differing standards,” Doughty said in his new order.
A “greater showing of standing” is required for an injunction than is required for the “minimal showing” needed to keep litigation alive.
The Supreme Court was “plainly applying this heightened standard when it reversed,” so this means the high court’s ruling “is not necessarily fatal to [the states’] suit generally.”
The states have demonstrated the need for more discovery on the standing issue, the judge said.
At the same time, Doughty denied for the time being the states’ request to amend their complaint in an effort to strengthen their legal standing in the case.
The fact that President Joe Biden, whose administration is being sued, will be replaced by President-elect Donald Trump in a little more than two months doesn’t justify throwing out the lawsuit, he said.
Even though “regime change is imminent,” it would be “quintessentially speculative” to dismiss the case based on that fact alone, the judge said.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill hailed the new ruling.
“We’re grateful to Judge Doughty for continuing to allow us to build a case that once again proves the Biden-Harris administration has perpetuated and expanded a massive censorship enterprise across the federal government,” Murrill said in an emailed statement.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey also expressed approval.
“The Court has cleared the way for us to obtain even MORE documents to EXPOSE and DISMANTLE the Biden–Harris censorship regime once and for all,” he wrote in a social media post.
“This lawsuit is for every American who has been censored by our own government.”
The Epoch Times reached out to the U.S. Department of Justice for comment but did not receive a reply by publication time.
