A federal judge issued a ruling this week allowing Attorney General Eric Schmitt’s lawsuit against President Biden alleging government-fueled social media censorship to proceed.
“No one has had the chance to look under the hood before - now we do,” Schmitt tweeted on Twitter on July 13.
The complaint, filed in association with the state of Louisiana, alleges that the suppression of disfavored speakers on the YouTube, Meta, and Twitter platforms is equal to government action, which violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“We allege that top-ranking Biden Administration officials colluded with those social media companies to suppress speech about the Hunter Biden laptop story, the origins of COVID-19, the efficacy of masks, and election integrity,” Schmitt said.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued the ruling after Missouri and Louisiana moved for expedited injunction-related discovery on June 17.
“The First Amendment obviously applies to the citizens of Missouri and Louisiana, so Missouri and Louisiana have the authority to assert those rights,” wrote Judge Terry Doughty in his July 12 opinion.
The defendants named in the May 5 complaint include former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Nina Jankowicz, former director of the Department of Homeland Security’s short-lived "Disinformation Governance Board," Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Secretary.
Doughty, who was nominated by former President Trump in 2017, found that the two states do have valid claims of both individual and quasi-sovereign parens patriae interests.
Parens patriae is a doctrine that advocates for the government to step in for the people when they are unable to speak for their own interests.
“This Court finds the Plaintiff States’ alleged injuries are both particularized and concrete,” Doughty wrote. “Plaintiff States have a 'parens patriae' standing and/or a quasi-sovereign interest in protecting their citizens from having rights of free speech suppressed.”
In addition to alleging violations of the First Amendment, the states of Missouri and Louisiana also allege action in excess of statutory authority and violations of the Administrative Procedure Act by HHS and DHS officials.
Doughty further established in his ruling that the states have standing to regulate the enforcement of their laws and constitution, which guarantees residents of Missouri and Louisiana free speech.
“The alleged injuries are “imminent” and allegedly “on-going,” due to allegations of social media suspensions, removals of disfavored viewpoints, and censorship,” he stated.