‘Pretty Stupid’: Obama AG Criticizes Court Ban on Biden Admin’s Censorship-By-Proxy Scheme

President Barack Obama (R) and Attorney General Eric Holder at the White House on Sept. 25, 2014. Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

Eric Holder, who served as attorney general under President Barack Obama, has issued a scathing rebuke of a landmark court decision that blocks the Biden administration from pressuring social media companies to censor free speech.

“Well this is pretty stupid. And potentially dangerous,” Mr. Holder said in a tweet, commenting on a court injunction issued on Tuesday by a Louisiana judge blocking various federal agencies from taking a range of actions with respect to social media companies on cracking down on Americans’ freedom of speech.

Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana wrote in a July 4 ruling (pdf) that government agencies including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice (DOJ), are prohibited from contacting or working with big tech companies to remove posts or block user accounts.

Mr. Doughty’s decision was hailed by free speech advocates and the plaintiffs, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who sued the Biden administration last year.

“This could be arguably one of the most important First Amendment cases in modern history,” Mr. Landry told The Epoch Times’ “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. The things that we uncovered, in this case, should be both shocking, appalling, and concerning for all Americans,” Mr. Landry said.

The Biden administration filed an appeal Wednesday, asking the court to overturn the ruling. The Epoch Times has learned that DOJ officials anticipate a quick decision by the appeals court to block the various prohibitions.

Mr. Landry said in a statement that he expected the appeal and vowed to “aggressively defend it,” adding that he thinks the case will eventually be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“We’re not done yet,” Mr. Bailey wrote in a post on social media. “We’re just getting started.”

The case traces back to a lawsuit brought by Louisiana and Missouri against President Joe Biden and several government agencies in May 2022, accusing them of pushing social media companies to censor posts and take down accounts in what their complaint (pdf) alleged was one of the “greatest assaults” on freedom of speech by federal officials in America’s history.

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry (C) speaks during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, on Jan. 22, 2020. Drew Angerer/Getty Images

‘Shocking, Appalling, and Concerning’

Mr. Doughty, a Trump appointee, wrote in Wednesday’s decision that the Republican attorneys general who sued the Biden administration “have produced evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.”

The judge said that the agencies named in the lawsuit, along with 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.”

The agencies are also barred the government 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 is also forbidden.

While the judge’s ruling isn’t final, the preliminary injunction was seen as a win by the Republican attorneys general, who have accused the Biden administration of pressuring big tech companies to engage in a censorship-by-proxy scheme.

“I think that this injunction today certainly begins curtailing government action, and telling social media companies what they can and cannot allow on their platforms,” Mr. Landry said.

‘All Were Suppressed’

Mr. Doughty wrote in a memorandum that accompanied the injunction that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of the case in their bid to prove that Biden administration used its power to silence opposition.

“Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed,” Mr. Doughty wrote in the memo.

However, Mr. Doughty did make some exceptions in his order, permitting 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 prohibition to contact or otherwise work with social media companies on content containing protected free speech applies to various named agencies as well as their agents, officers, employees, and contractors.

The DOJ told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement that it would not comment on pending litigation.