Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s request to intervene in a major case being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court was turned down by the nation’s top court on Dec. 11.
One of the justices offered a dissent.
A majority of justices declined a motion to intervene from Mr. Kennedy, who’s running for president as an independent after beginning his campaign as a Democrat.
The Supreme Court in October agreed to hear the case, Missouri v. Biden, which was brought by several state attorneys general and involves the pressure the U.S. government applied to social media companies during and before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Government officials repeatedly encouraged the companies to censor individual users, according to emails and other materials produced during discovery.
The government appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
Mr. Kennedy brought a similar case, which was consolidated at the district court level with the Missouri lawsuit. However, when the courts issued a preliminary injunction in the Missouri case, they declined to rule on a motion for an injunction from Mr. Kennedy and his co-plaintiff.
Without the Supreme Court taking action, the plaintiffs are “stranded,” Mr. Kennedy’s lawyers said in their motion to intervene, presented to the Supreme Court in October.
“The Kennedy Plaintiffs remain stranded in the district court, even though their rights will be as fully adjudicated by this court as those of the Missouri v. Biden plaintiffs themselves,” the motion reads. “Intervention is warranted for that reason alone.”
The argument for intervention was strengthened by the fact that Mr. Kennedy is a presidential candidate who has been targeted by the federal government and, to this day, sees speeches and interviews blocked online, according to his lawyers.
Most justices didn’t agree and rejected the motion.
The justices who rejected the motion didn’t explain their reasoning.
Mr. Kennedy is chairman-on-leave of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a medical awareness nonprofit. He’s being represented by the nonprofit.
Mary Holland, the attorney on record, didn’t respond to a request for comment. Mr. Kennedy’s campaign didn’t return an inquiry.
Mr. Kennedy is an alleged victim of what the lower courts described as a “coordinated campaign” between the government and big tech firms to censor, and Mr. Kennedy is also a presidential candidate, according to Justice Alito.
“Because Mr. Kennedy’s arguments on the merits are essentially the same as respondents’, allowing intervention would not significantly affect petitioners’ burden with regard to that issue,” the justice wrote. “But the denial of intervention is likely to prevent Mr. Kennedy from vindicating the rights he claims until the spring of 2024 and perhaps as late as June of that year. And by that time, several months of the presidential campaign will have passed.”
Government officials have argued that the plaintiffs in the case don’t have standing, but Mr. Kennedy has “a strong claim to standing,” and the government hasn’t claimed otherwise, Justice Alito noted. Because the motion was rejected, if the court sides with the government, the “decision will provide little guidance for deciding Mr. Kennedy’s case, and Mr. Kennedy will be required to wait until the district court separately assesses his claims,” according to the justice.
Mr. Kennedy’s motion states that allowing Mr. Kennedy and his co-plaintiff, Connie Sampognaro, another presidential candidate, would ensure that the plaintiffs in the case have standing.
“Unlike the Missouri plaintiffs, the Kennedy plaintiffs need not prove that they, specifically, will be censored in [the] future—because their challenge does not depend on a claim that their specific speech has been (or will be) censored. The right of social media consumers to access an uncensored public square is endangered by the government’s campaign to induce social media censorship no matter which particular speakers are targeted or censored in the future,” the motion reads. “The Missouri plaintiffs primarily assert speakers’ rights. The Kennedy plaintiffs assert the rights of the social media audience, and the standing of an organization like CHD to assert such rights on behalf of consumers is established beyond peradventure.”
Mr. Alito concluded in his dissent: “Our democratic form of government is undermined if government officials prevent a candidate for high office from communicating with voters, and such efforts are especially dangerous when the officials engaging in such conduct are answerable to a rival candidate. I would allow him to intervene to ensure that we can reach the merits of respondents’ claims and to prevent the irreparable loss of his First Amendment rights.”
CHD said in a statement that it agreed with Justice Alito.
“Mr. Kennedy and CHD have been directly harmed, and the court’s failure to allow intervention means that our rights are likely to continue to be violated until spring or even June 2024,” the organization stated.
