A federal judge in Louisiana has denied the federal government’s motion to dismiss former Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt’s lawsuit alleging that social media companies were coerced into censoring viewpoints and speakers disfavored by U.S. Pres. Joe Biden’s administration.
“Despite the detailed pleadings, Defendants continue to couch Plaintiffs’ allegations as “unfounded” and “conclusory,” and they argue that this is not the “typical case” for Article III standing,” wrote Western District of Louisiana Judge Terry Doughty in his March 20 ruling. “However, “typicality” is not a requirement for traceability. Because Article III ‘requires no more than de facto causality,’ the Court finds that all Plaintiffs have adequately alleged the traceability element for Article III standing purposes.”
State of Missouri ex rel. Schmitt, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al plaintiffs allege that YouTube, Meta, and Twitter acted as an arm of the U.S. government in violation of the First Amendment.
Doughty further stated in his opinion, “The complaint alleges significant encouragement and coercion that converts otherwise private conduct of censorship on social media platforms into state action and is unpersuaded by defendant's arguments for the contrary.”
Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry originally filed the lawsuit in May 2022.
New Civil Liberties Alliance joined its plaintiffs in the lawsuit in August 2022. Their plaintiffs include epidemiologists Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, and Dr. Martin Kulldorff as well as Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Jill Hines who have all been censored for expressing views about COVID restrictions that opposed the government’s position.
“This is the first time a judge has actually said that when the government is exercising this degree of control over companies through coercion or other means, that's state action and that's a First Amendment violation,” said Jenin Younes, litigation counsel with the NCLA.
On May 28, Judge Terry Doughty is scheduled to hear arguments for and against the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction.
“What we want is for a judge to say that the government can't coerce, collude with, or threaten social media companies to accomplish their censorship aims,” Younes told the St. Louis Record.
As previously reported in the St. Louis Record, the plaintiffs presented 362 pages of facts showing that multiple federal agencies and White House officials used threats, coercion, cajoling, collusion, demands, trickery, and deceit to influence social-media platforms.
"The government just shouldn't be censoring people based on viewpoint period, whether it's conservative, liberal, or anything," Younes added.