The U.S. district judge who granted an injunction barring several federal agencies from various types of communication with social media companies denied the Justice Department’s motion to put that injunction on hold.
The ruling Monday keeps the temporary injunction in place.
“Today is another big win for free speech and our efforts to fight back against big tech and government censorship,” said Sen. Eric Schmitt, Missouri Republican.
“While this is a big win,” he added, “the case will continue on in higher courts, and our efforts to finally end this ‘censorship enterprise’ once and for all continue on as well – stay tuned.”
Mr. Schmitt filed Missouri v. Biden in 2022 when he served as his state’s attorney general, alleging a “vast censorship enterprise” between the federal government and social media companies.
The lawsuit alleged that the federal government overstepped in its efforts to convince social media companies to address postings that could result in vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic or impact elections.
On July 4, Judge Terry Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued the temporary injunction which barred many federal agencies and some named employees from engaging in different types of communication with big tech firms.
The order also bars the agencies and officials from pressuring social media companies “in any manner” to suppress posts.
Judge Doughty, an appointee of former President Trump, cited “substantial evidence” of a far-reaching censorship campaign.
He wrote that the “evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’”
In a motion filed Thursday with a federal appeals court, Biden administration attorneys said that Judge Doughty’s ruling could cause “grave harm” by preventing the government from “engaging in a vast range of lawful and responsible conduct.”
In the Biden administration’s court filing, attorneys led by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton called the order “ambiguous.”
They said it could prevent the administration from “speaking on matters of public concern and working with social media companies on initiatives to prevent grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes.”
“These immediate and ongoing harms to the Government outweigh any risk of injury to Plaintiffs if a stay is granted,” the administration said.
The Washington Times exclusively reported, however, that whistleblowers at the FBI told the House Judiciary Committee that bureau leadership has ignored the judge’s order and has not sent out any guidance or directives to its rank-and-file employees on steps to abide by the court’s injunction.
