ST. LOUIS — Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is clashing with the Biden Administration over censorship endeavors in a case before the United States Supreme Court.
At the core of this legal clash lies an urgent call to halt the suppression of conservative viewpoints, with millions of Americans' First Amendment liberties hanging in the balance.
The legal battle was set in motion on May 5, 2022, when attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana joined forces. Their quest for justice gained traction when, on July 12, 2022, the Court granted their request for discovery.
The decision opened the doors for Missouri and Louisiana to delve into pertinent documents and summon key witnesses from the Biden Administration.
"Today, the United States Supreme Court heard the most important First Amendment case in this nation’s history," Bailey said. "I’m proud that Missouri is leading it. My office brought this lawsuit to halt the disgusting silencing of millions of Americans by the Biden Administration. We feel confident after today’s arguments, and look forward to reminding the nation that the First Amendment still means something in this country."
Over the course of their pursuit, Missouri and Louisiana conducted depositions under oath with prominent federal officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, FBI Special Agent Elvis Chan, Eric Waldo from the Surgeon General’s Office, Carol Crawford representing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Brian Scully of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and Daniel Kimmage from the State Department.
Bailey, alongside then-Attorney General Jeff Landry of Louisiana, submitted their motion for a preliminary injunction on March 6, 2023.
Their case rested on a staggering array of more than 1,400 substantiated facts. These revelations exposed a web of coercion and collusion between top federal officials and major social media platforms, all conspiring to trample upon Americans' cherished right to free speech.
On July 4, 2023, the federal district court granted the motion set forth by Missouri and Louisiana.
This decisive move blocked high-ranking officials in the federal government from further infringing upon the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently upheld this injunction on two occasions, cementing a crucial victory for the fundamental liberties enshrined in the Constitution.
"A group of social-media users and two states allege that numerous federal officials coerced social-media platforms into censoring certain social media content, in violation of the First Amendment," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled. "We agree, but only as to some of those officials. So, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate the injunction in part, and modify the injunction in part."
Over the past few years, particularly since the 2020 presidential transition, a group of federal officials has consistently engaged with major American social media companies regarding the proliferation of "misinformation" on their platforms.
These officials, representing the White House, CDC, FBI, and other agencies, expressed concerns and urged the platforms to take action against content and accounts they disapproved of.
The platforms appeared to comply, granting the officials access to a fast-track reporting system, reducing or removing flagged posts and deplatforming users. They also adjusted their internal policies to capture more flagged content and provided regular reports on their moderation efforts to these officials.
This collaboration persisted through the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2022 congressional election and remains ongoing.
The plaintiffs, including three doctors, a news website, a healthcare activist, and two states, found their posts and stories removed or downgraded by the platforms, as their content touched on contentious topics such as the COVID-19 lab-leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side effects, election fraud and the Hunter Biden laptop story.
The plaintiffs argue that while the platforms stifled their speech, it was the government officials who were orchestrating these actions, allegedly "coercing, threatening, and pressuring" the social media platforms to censor them through private communications and legal threats, the court said.