The federal government has filed a notice appealing an injunction that blocks various White House officials and government agencies from influencing social media companies against dissenting users.
“What they can't do is say to social media companies, to the extent that someone disagrees with them, ‘Take down their post, throttle them, put up warnings, or fact check them,’” said Zhonette Brown, senior litigation counsel with New Civil Liberties Alliance.
The preliminary injunction, granted by Western District of Louisiana Judge Terry Doughty, was requested by Louisiana AG Jeff Landry and Missouri AG Andrew Bailey.
“The Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence in support of their claims that they were the victims of a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign,” Doughty wrote in his July 4 opinion. “This court finds that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment free speech claim against the Defendants.”
The federal government, however, has asked the district court to stay the injunction while the 11th Circuit reviews Doughty's decision.
"The judge has ordered expedited briefing on that, which should be this week," Brown said in an interview.
She is among the attornies representing the plaintiffs in the matter.
In the State of Missouri ex rel. Schmitt et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. et al, the attorneys general allege that YouTube, Meta, and Twitter acted as an arm of the U.S. government in violation of the First Amendment, especially in the case of conservative users who disagree with U.S. Pres. Joe Biden’s administration.
“The judge obviously has carve-outs for criminal activity, and national security but if it's a First Amendment issue, if it's a political topic, then the government can't express to the social media companies any sort of desire to have the material removed or otherwise sort of interfered with,” Brown told the St. Louis Record.
The judge’s decision sets a precedent as to what is appropriate government speech in the form of simple declarations of government policy.
“It's not just in the First Amendment context that the government is at risk of getting into state action and becoming responsible under the constitution for the conduct of third parties so drawing that line between how far the government can go in involving itself in business before what the business does is a result of state action is a more broadly applicable principle that people should pay attention to,” Brown added.