NCLA Site Search

Cases

Murthy, et al. v. Missouri, et al. (f/k/a Missouri, et al. v. Biden, et al.)

CASE: Murthy, et al. v. Missouri, et al. (f/k/a Missouri, et al. v. Biden, et al.)

STATUS: Active

NCLA ROLE: Counsel

COURTS HEARD IN: W.D. LA, 5th Cir.

ORIGINAL COURT: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

DECIDING COURT: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

OPENED: August 2, 2022

AGENCIES: Centers for Disease Control | Department of Commerce | Department of Health and Human Services | Department of Justice | Department of Treasury | Food and Drug Administration | Missouri | President of the United States

FOCUS AREAS:

Administrative Speech Controls

The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

Due Process Violations

The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

Public statements, emails, and publicly released documents establish that the President of the United States and other senior officials in the Biden Administration have violated the First Amendment by directing social-media companies to censor viewpoints that conflicted with the government’s messaging on Covid-19.

NCLA joined the lawsuit, State of Missouri ex rel. Schmitt, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al., representing renowned epidemiologists and co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, as well as Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Jill Hines. Social media platforms, acting at the federal government’s behest, repeatedly censored NCLA’s clients for articulating views on those platforms in opposition to government-approved views on Covid-19 issues. This insidious censorship was the direct result of the federal government’s campaign to silence those who voice perspectives that deviate from those of the Biden Administration. Government officials’ public threats to punish social media companies that did not do their bidding demonstrate this linkage, as do emails from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to social media companies.

This sort of censorship, which strikes at the heart of what the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect—free speech, especially political speech—has constituted unlawful government action. Moreover, this state action has deprived Americans of their right to hear the views of those who are being silenced, a First Amendment corollary of the right to free speech.

Authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, Drs. Martin Kulldorff, Sunetra Gupta, and Jay Bhattacharya

Jenin Younes
Litigation Counsel
John J. Vecchione
Senior Litigation Counsel
Zhonette Brown
General Counsel and Senior Litigation Counsel
Kaitlyn Schiraldi
Staff Attorney
Andrew Ceonzo
Summer Law Clerk
Leah Roddenberry
Summer Law Clerk
NCLA FILINGS

Reply Brief for the Petitioners

March 4, 2024 | Read More

Brief of Amicus Populi and Freedom X as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents

February 9, 2024 | Read More

Brief for the State of Montana, 15 Other States, and the Arizona Legislature as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents and Affirmance

February 9, 2024 | Read More

Brief of Amica Curiae Angela Reading Supporting Respondents

February 9, 2024 | Read More

Brief Amicus Curiae of America’s Future, Free Speech Coalition, Free Speech Def. and Ed. Fund, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Fdn., Gun Owners of Cal., Tennessee Firearms Assn., Public Advocate, U.S. Constitutional Rights Legal Def. Fund, Leadership Institute, DownsizeDC.org, Downsize DC Fdn., The Western Journal, and Conservative Legal Def. and Ed. Fund, in Support of Respondents

February 9, 2024 | Read More

PRESS RELEASES

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Pivotal NCLA Case Against Gov’t Social Media Censorship

March 18, 2024 | Read More

Amici Support NCLA’s Stance at Supreme Court in Major Social Media Censorship Injunction Case

February 12, 2024 | Read More

NCLA Asks Supreme Court to Uphold Injunction Against Government Social Media Censorship

February 6, 2024 | Read More

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Landmark NCLA Case Against Government Social Media Censorship

October 20, 2023 | Read More

In NCLA Victory, Fifth Circuit Expands Injunction Against Government Social Media Censorship

October 3, 2023 | Read More

IN THE MEDIA

Supreme Court must rely on the First Amendment, not its own precedent, when deciding government censorship case

March 27, 2024

SCOTUS Must Protect The 1st Amendment. The Biden Admin Certainly Won’t

March 18, 2024

How to Defeat the Administrative State

February 22, 2024

Controlling the Language: How Government Puppeteers the Minds of Millions

NCLA Blog

February 9, 2024

Examining The CDC’s COVID Response Actions: “Coercion. Deception. Censorship.”

September 27, 2023

CASE HIGHLIGHTS

RELATED CASES

SHARE THIS CASE

Enter your email address above to be notified whenever we post a new document to this case.