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

CASE SUMMARY

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 alongside the states of Missouri and Louisiana, 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.

CASE DOCUMENTS

March 4, 2024 | Reply Brief for the Petitioners
Click here to read the full document.
February 9, 2024 | Brief of Amicus Populi and Freedom X as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 9, 2024 | Brief for the State of Montana, 15 Other States, and the Arizona Legislature as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents and Affirmance
Click here to read the full document.
February 9, 2024 | Brief of Amica Curiae Angela Reading Supporting Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 9, 2024 | 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
Click here to read the full document.
February 9, 2024 | Brief of The Rutherford Institute as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 9, 2024 | Brief Amici Curiae of the Kennedy Plaintiffs in Support of Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 9, 2024 | Brief for the International Center for Law & Economics as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 9, 2024 | Brief of Amici Curiae Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, National Coalition Against Censorship, and First Amendment Lawyers Association in Support of Respondents and Affirmance
Click here to read the full document.
February 9, 2024 | Brief of Amicus Curiae Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in Support of Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 9, 2024 | Amici Curiae Brief of America’s Frontline Doctors and Dr. Simone Gold, M.D., J.D., in Support of Respondents for Affirmance
Click here to read the full document.
February 9, 2024 | Amicus Curiae Brief of The Buckeye Institute in Support of Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 9, 2024 | Brief of Amici Curiae Charlie Kirk, David Harris, Jr., and Robby Starbuck in Support of Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 9, 2024 | Brief of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 9, 2024 | Brief of Amicus Curiae Informed Consent Action Network in Support of Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 9, 2024 | Brief for Representative Jim Jordan And 44 Other Members of Congress as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 9, 2024 | Brief of National Religious Broadcasters as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 9, 2024 | Brief of American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 8, 2024 | Amicus Curiae Brief of the “Twitter Files” Journalists: Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, Lee Fang, David Zweig, Leighton Woodhouse, Alex Gutentag in Support of Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 8, 2024 | Brief of Justin Hart and the Liberty Justice Center as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 8, 2024 | Brief Amicus Curiae of Center for American Liberty in Support of Affirmance for Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 8, 2024 | Brief for Amicus Curiae Americans for Prosperity Foundation in Support of Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 8, 2024 | Brief of Amici Curiae Advancing American Freedom Inc.; American Family Association Action; Gary L. Bauer, President, American Values; Anglicans for Life; Center for Political Renewal; Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE); Center of the American Experiment; Charlie Gerow; Christians Engaged; International Conference of Evangelical Chaplain Endorsers; James Dobson Family Institute; Tim Jones, Fmr. Speaker, Missouri House, Chairman, Missouri Center-Right Coalition; Jenny Beth Martin, Honorary Chairman, Tea Party Patriots Action, Inc.; Mountain States Legal Foundation; National Apostolic Christian Leadership Conference; National Center for Public Policy Research; Setting Things Right; 60 Plus Association; Students for Life of America; The Justice Foundation; Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.; Richard A. Viguerie, American Target Advertising, Inc.; Yankee Institute; and Young America’s Foundation in Support of Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 8, 2024 | Brief of Amici Curiae the Manhattan Institute, REACT19, and Three Vaccine-Injured Individuals in Support of Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 7, 2024 | Brief of Amicus Curiae Association of American Physicians and Surgeons in Support of Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 7, 2024 | Brief of Institute for Free Speech as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 7, 2024 | Brief of Amicus Curiae Louder With Crowder, LLC In Support of Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 7, 2024 | Brief of Atlantic Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
February 2, 2024 | Brief of Respondents
Click here to read the full document.
December 22, 2023 | Brief of Amicus Curiae the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Support of Neither Party
Click here to read the full document.
December 22, 2023 | Brief of the International Municipal Lawyers Association as Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party
Click here to read the full document.
December 21, 2023 | Brief Amicus Curiae of FLOOR64, Inc. D/B/a the Copia Institute in Support of Neither Party
Click here to read the full document.
December 21, 2023 | Brief of NetChoice, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, Chamber of Progress, and the Cato Institute as Amici Curiae in Support of Neither Party
Click here to read the full document.
December 21, 2023 | Brief of Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation and Center for Democracy & Technology in Support of Neither Party
Click here to read the full document.
December 19, 2023 | Brief of Petitioners Vivek H. Murthy, et al. in the U.S. Supreme Court
Click here to read the full document.
November 13, 2023 | Kennedy Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Intervene
Click here to read the full document.
November 6, 2023 | Plaintiffs-Respondents’ Response in Opposition to the Motion to Intervene of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., et al.
Click here to read the full document.
October 20, 2023 | Order of the U.S. Supreme Court Granting Stay and Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Click here to read the full document.
October 13, 2023 | Order of the U.S. Supreme Court Issuing Administrative Stay on Preliminary Injunction
Click here to read the full document.
October 10, 2023 | Response to Applicants' Third Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Emergency Application for a Stay of Injunction
Click here to read the full document.
October 5, 2023 | Third Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Emergency Application for a Stay
Click here to read the full document.
October 3, 2023 | Order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Petition for Rehearing
Click here to read the full document.
September 28, 2023 | Response to Plaintiffs’ Petition for Rehearing
Click here to read the full document.
September 25, 2023 | Order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Granting Petition for Rehearing
Click here to read the full document.
September 22, 2023 | Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Petition for Panel Rehearing
Click here to read the full document.
September 21, 2023 | Reply in Support of Application for a Stay
Click here to read the full document.
September 20, 2023 | Response to Application for Stay of Injunction
Click here to read the full document.
September 14, 2023 | Application for a Stay of the Injunction Issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
Click here to read the full document.
September 8, 2023 | Opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Click here to read the full document.
August 7, 2023 | Brief of Reps. Jordan, Armstrong, Biggs, Bishop, Cammack, Fry, Gooden, Hageman, Johson, Massie, Moore, and Stefanik as Amici Curaei Supporting Plaintiffs-Appellees and Affirmance
Click here to read the full document.
August 7, 2023 | Brief of Amicus of the Buckeye Institute in Support of Appellees
Click here to read the full document.
August 4, 2023 | Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellees
Click here to read the full document.
July 24, 2023 | Memorandum Order
Click here to read the full document.
July 22, 2023 | Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Consolidation
Click here to read the full document.
July 19, 2023 | Physician Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff Hines’s Opposition to Kennedy v. Biden Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate
Click here to read the full document.
July 14, 2023 | Order Granting Temporary Administrative Stay of Preliminary Injunction
Click here to read the full document.
July 5, 2023 | Defendants' Notice of Appeal
Click here to read the full document.
July 4, 2023 | Memorandum Ruling on Request for Preliminary Injunction
Click here to read the full document.
July 4, 2023 | Preliminary Injunction Order
Click here to read the full document.
May 26, 2023 | Transcript of Hearing Before Judge Terry A. Doughty
Click here to read the full document.
July 5, 2023 | Defendants' Notice of Appeal
Click here to read the full document.
March 20, 2023 | Memorandum Ruling
Click here to read the full document.
March 15, 2023 | Memorandum Order
Click here to read the full document.
March 13, 2023 | Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact
Click here to read the full document.
March 6, 2023 | Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Click here to read the full document.
January 11, 2022 | Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief Addressing the Fifth Circuit’s Nondispositive Order Regarding Jennifer Psaki’s Deposition
Click here to read the full document.
December 5, 2022 | Transcript of Zoom Videotaped Deposition of Daniel Kimmage
Click here to read the full document.
December 5, 2022 | Transcript of Zoom Videotaped Deposition of Elvis Chan
Click here to read the full document.
December 5, 2022 | Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Dr. Anthony Fauci
Click here to read the full document.
November 21, 2022 | Order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Click here to read the full document.
November 21, 2022 | Memorandum Order
Click here to read the full document.
November 18, 2022 | Transcript of Motion Hearing Before the Honorable Ivan D. Davis United States Magistrate Judge
Click here to read the full document.
November 15, 2022 | Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Carol Crawford
Click here to read the full document.
November 2, 2022 | Memorandum Order
Click here to read the full document.
October 21, 2022 | Memorandum Order Regarding Witness Depositions
Click here to read the full document.
October 14, 2022 | Joint Statement Regarding Witness Depositions
Click here to read the full document.
October 6, 2022 | Second Amended Complaint
Click here to read the full document.
September 6, 2022 | Memorandum Ruling and Order on Discovery Disputes
Click here to read the full document.
September 1, 2022 | The Parties’ Joint Statement on Discovery Disputes
Click here to read the full document.
August 2, 2022 | First Amended Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division
Click here to read the full document.

PRESS RELEASES

March 18, 2024 | Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Pivotal NCLA Case Against Gov’t Social Media Censorship

Washington, DC (March 18, 2024) – Today, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the New Civil Liberties Alliance’s Murthy v. Missouri case, considering whether to uphold a historic preliminary injunction granted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The injunction, temporarily stayed by the Court, would bar officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and Surgeon General’s office from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech. The injuries to NCLA’s clients—Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Aaron Kheriaty, and Martin Kulldorff, and Ms. Jill Hines—supplied standing for many of the arguments made in the courtroom today, urging the Court to uphold the injunction in defense of Americans’ First Amendment rights.

In September, a Fifth Circuit panel upheld the key components of U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s July 4 preliminary injunction order, prohibiting named federal officials from coercing or significantly encouraging social media companies to suppress legal speech. That decision vindicated NCLA’s clients, who have been blacklisted, shadow-banned, de-boosted, throttled, and suspended on social media as part of a years-long censorship campaign orchestrated by the White House, CDC, FBI, CISA, and Surgeon General in a “whole of government” effort.

This censorship regime has successfully suppressed perspectives contradicting government-approved views on hotly disputed topics such as whether natural immunity to Covid-19 exists, the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines, the virus’s origins, and mask mandate efficacy. The vast, coordinated silencing of First Amendment-protected speech has targeted influential, highly qualified voices including doctors and scientists like Drs. Bhattacharya, Kheriaty, and Kulldorff, as well as those like Ms. Hines who have tried to raise awareness of issues.

NCLA has emphasized throughout this case that the First Amendment’s text forbids “abridging” (diminishing) the freedom of speech, meaning the government’s scheme violates the Constitution even when it encourages social media platforms to suppress legal speech without coercing them. Though the Fifth Circuit’s injunction only forbids coercing or significantly encouraging the suppression of legal speech, the Supreme Court could and should expand it to bar the government from getting the social media platforms to abridge speech to any degree whatsoever.

By unlawfully influencing the enforcement of the social-media platforms’ content-moderation policies, the government gravely harmed the ability of NCLA’s clients to convey their views to the public. Officials also deprived NCLA’s clients and other Americans of their right to hear and respond to opinions that differ from the government’s. Judge Doughty strikingly described the Administration’s conduct as “arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States history” and “akin to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.”

NCLA released the following statements:

“Our clients, who include top doctors and scientists, were censored for social media posts that turned out to be factually accurate, depriving the public of valuable perspectives during a public health crisis. We’re optimistic that the majority will look at the record and recognize that this was a sprawling government censorship enterprise without precedent in this country, and that this cannot be permitted to continue if the First Amendment is to survive.”
— Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

“I stand here representing the hundreds of millions of Americans who are not medical professionals, academics, or journalists but who simply knew that what was happening in America was not right. We went to social media to voice our opinions and were silenced by government employees who bullied social media snowflakes into silencing our voices. The government has no authority to police our opinions; they are protected speech. I would argue the government is the source of misinformation, and it is our responsibility as Americans to make every effort to correct that.”
— Jill Hines, NCLA Client

“Just down the street, the Constitution of the United States sits in the Archives. If Americans don’t stand up and defend our constitutional rights, it is just a piece of paper. I am honored to be here with NCLA and my co-plaintiffs to defend the constitutional right of free speech, which has been systematically suppressed by the federal government. I trust that the Supreme Court will do the right thing and uphold the injunction against government censorship of constitutionally protected speech.”
Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, NCLA Client, Fellow and Director, Bioethics and American Democracy Program, Ethics and Public Policy Center

“During the Covid era, the government promulgated misinformation on lockdowns, school closures, immunity, risk stratification, Covid vaccine efficacy against infection, and Covid vaccine harm. The First Amendment should have protected the American people by permitting the public to loudly correct the government on these matters. Instead, the government censored Americans who were telling the truth. In the Murthy v. Missouri case, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to restore the First Amendment in this country. I hope it does so.”
— Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, NCLA Client, Professor at the Stanford University School of Medicine in the Department of Health Policy

“The First Amendment does not allow the government to abridge speech based on whether the speech is true or false. That is what the government did here, and if that is allowed then the First Amendment is a dead letter.”
— Mark Chenoweth, President, NCLA

For more information visit the case page here or watch the case video here.

ABOUT NCLA

NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.

Download the full document

February 12, 2024 | Amici Support NCLA’s Stance at Supreme Court in Major Social Media Censorship Injunction Case

Washington, DC (February 12, 2024) – Forty-five Members of Congress, 16 states, state legislators, former government officials, journalists, attorneys, media personalities, academics, activist groups and research organizations have filed 27 amici curiae briefs supporting the New Civil Liberties Alliance’s position in Murthy v. Missouri against government-directed censorship. NCLA is asking the Supreme Court to uphold a preliminary injunction granted by the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that bars White House, CDC, FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and Surgeon General’s office officials from significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor lawful speech. The Circuit court upheld key components of a preliminary injunction order issued by U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, who described the Administration’s scheme as “arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States history” and “akin to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.”

Representing individual respondents Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, and Aaron Kheriaty, and Ms. Jill Hines, NCLA looks forward to presenting oral argument to the Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri on March 18, alongside the co-respondent States of Missouri and Louisiana. NCLA thanks amici for speaking out in defense of Americans’ First Amendment rights.

The amici who filed in support of NCLA’s position include the International Center for Law & Economics; Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, National Coalition Against Censorship, and First Amendment Lawyers Association; Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence; America’s Frontline Doctors and Dr. Simone Gold, M.D., J.D.; The Buckeye Institute; Charlie Kirk, David Harris, Jr., and Robby Starbuck; National Institute of Family and Life Advocates; Informed Consent Action Network; Rep. Jim Jordan and 44 Other Members of Congress; National Religious Broadcasters; American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce; “Twitter Files” Journalists: Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, Lee Fang, David Zweig, Leighton Woodhouse, and Alex Gutentag; Justin Hart and the Liberty Justice Center; Center for American Liberty; Americans for Prosperity Foundation; Manhattan Institute, REACT19, and three vaccine-injured individuals; Association of American Physicians and Surgeons; Institute for Free Speech; Atlantic Legal Foundation; Louder with Crowder, LLC; Kennedy Plaintiffs; National Center for Public Policy Research, et al.; The Rutherford Institute; 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; Angela Reading; State of Montana, 15 Other States, and the Arizona Legislature; Amicus Populi and Freedom X.

The 27 amici briefs bolster NCLA’s arguments and address concerns including threats to the democratic process, to free public discourse, and the problem with federal agencies straying from their proper missions.

Excerpts follow:

The House Judiciary Committee and the Weaponization Subcommittee have been conducting an ongoing investigation into how and to what extent the executive branch has coerced or colluded with social media companies to censor speech. Very recent evidence, obtained in said investigation in the weeks after the district court’s preliminary injunction ruling further corroborates the district court’s findings.”
—  Rep. Jim Jordan and 44 Other Members of Congress

“Without that open and robust exchange of ideas, deliberative democracy and all its attendant benefits withers and dies. The extensive federal censorship campaign outlined in the district court’s and Fifth Circuit’s thorough opinions, distorted—and still distorts—the nature of that ‘public exchange of ideas’ and undermines ‘deliberative democracy.’”
—  State of Montana, 15 Other States, and the Arizona Legislature

“The case’s facts demonstrate the myriad, subtle ways the administrative state can ‘abridg[e] … the freedom of speech, or of the press.’ Without the constitutional restraints of Congressional oversight and judicial review that the Founders envisioned, administrative agencies have vast freedom to abridge Americans’ free speech. For instance, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has re-defined its mission from protecting Americans from foreign computer hacking to silencing American citizens and journalists who criticize government policy. With their bottomless stores of inducements and incentives, federal agencies can abridge speech directly or use third-party cut-outs.”
“Twitter Files” Journalists: Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, Lee Fang, David Zweig, Leighton Woodhouse, and Alex Gutentag

“[T]he First Amendment problems addressed in this case are significant regardless of who is attempting to pull the levers behind the scenes. Although much attention has focused on the power of ‘Big Tech,’ it is a bad idea for government officials to huddle in back rooms with corporate honchos to decide which social media posts are ‘truthful’ or ‘good’ while insisting, Wizard of Oz-style, ‘pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.’ No matter how concerning it may be when private decisionmakers employ opaque or unwise moderation policies, allowing government actors to surreptitiously exercise control is far worse.
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, National Coalition Against Censorship, and First Amendment Lawyers Association

What makes this example of jawboning the most dangerous ever to reach the court is social media platforms’ social function. Preserving individuals’ ability to ‘communicat[e] thoughts … and discuss[] public questions,’ as well as the integrity of public discourse, depends on the preservation of public forums. But while the traditional public forums are the ‘streets and parks … held in trust for the use of the public,’ id., new technologies have made digital spheres the primary realms for most discussions.”
—  Manhattan Institute, REACT19, and three vaccine-injured individuals

Just as Henry II was constrained in his ability to deal with Becket directly, American presidents are constrained by both the First Amendment and the political backlash that would attend any direct government action that could be viewed as an attempt to silence critics. … After all, [the King] did not actually order Becket’s murder. He simply vented his royal frustration over an actor who was spreading disinformation and encouraging behavior that the King deemed unhealthy for the body politic.
—  The Buckeye Institute

“Perhaps it will seem like litigation hyperbole, but the fate of the freedom of speech in America may actually depend on this case.”
—  Kennedy Plaintiffs

NCLA released the following statements:

“The support from amici in this case is greatly appreciated and demonstrates that Americans support the Constitution and do not want the Government censoring them on social media.”
— John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA

Amici in this case span the political spectrum, demonstrating that this is not a partisan issue. All Americans, regardless of their political leanings, should oppose the government’s flagrant disregard for free speech and the First Amendment.”
— Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

For more information visit the case page here or watch the case video here.

ABOUT NCLA

NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.

Download the full document

February 6, 2024 | NCLA Asks Supreme Court to Uphold Injunction Against Government Social Media Censorship
Washington, DC (February 6, 2024) — The New Civil Liberties Alliance has filed a brief for the respondents in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Murthy v. Missouri, urging the Justices to uphold a historic preliminary injunction granted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The injunction would bar officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and Surgeon General’s office from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech. Representing individual plaintiffs Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, and Aaron Kheriaty, and Ms. Jill Hines, NCLA eagerly anticipates presenting oral arguments to the Supreme Court on March 18, joining the Attorneys General of Louisiana and Missouri in defense of Americans’ First Amendment rights.

In September, a Fifth Circuit panel upheld the key components of U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s July 4 preliminary injunction order, prohibiting named federal officials from coercing or significantly encouraging social media companies to suppress legal speech. That decision vindicated NCLA’s clients, who have been blacklisted, shadow-banned, de-boosted, throttled, and suspended on social media as part of a years-long censorship campaign orchestrated by the White House, CDC, FBI, CISA, and Surgeon General in a “whole of government” effort.

This censorship regime has successfully suppressed perspectives contradicting government-approved views on hotly disputed topics such as whether natural immunity to Covid-19 exists, the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines, the virus’s origins, and mask mandate efficacy. The vast, coordinated silencing of First Amendment-protected speech has targeted influential, highly qualified voices including doctors and scientists like Drs. Bhattacharya, Kulldorff and Kheriaty, as well as those like Ms. Hines who have tried to raise awareness of issues. Though the U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily stayed the Fifth Circuit’s injunction, NCLA believes the Justices are ultimately unlikely to permit the egregious First Amendment abridgements this case has exposed.

The Fifth Circuit recognized that the Plaintiffs did “not challenge the social-media platforms’ content-moderation policies.” Rather, Plaintiffs challenged the government’s unlawful efforts to influence “enforcement of those policies.” The government gravely harmed the ability of NCLA’s clients to convey their views to the public, and it deprived Americans of their right to hear opinions that differ from the government’s. Judge Doughty strikingly described the Administration’s conduct as “arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States history” and “akin to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.” He was right, and the Supreme Court must not permit it.

NCLA is a leading defender of First Amendment rights against violations by the Administrative State. In December, NCLA launched a lawsuit against the U.S. State Department for funding the development, testing, and marketing of censorship technology used to suppress First Amendment-protected speech by conservative media outlets including The Daily Wire and The Federalist based on viewpoints expressed in their content. On Wednesday, the Securities and Exchange Commission denied the NCLA’s long-standing petition to amend the agency’s “Gag Rule,” under which SEC forbids settling parties from even truthfully criticizing their cases in public. NCLA plans to challenge SEC’s denial of the petition in court.

NCLA released the following statements:

“If the Government could not pass a law blocking this speech it should not be able to browbeat third parties into blocking it. Police officers can’t tell booksellers what to put on their shelves and the government can’t tell social media what to delete.”
— John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA

“Despite having neither the facts nor the law on its side, as two federal courts have found, the Biden Administration continues to defend its viewpoint- based censorship enterprise. NCLA is confident the Supreme Court will agree that the challenged actions violated the First Amendment rights of our clients and thousands of other Americans.”
— Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

“The government’s job is to police the line between lawful and unlawful speech, not the line between true and false speech. Our Founding Fathers rightly did not trust the government to be the arbiter of truth. In fact, much of the speech the government suppressed in this case—about Covid-19 and Hunter Biden’s laptop—was truthful.”
— Mark Chenoweth, President and Chief Legal Officer, NCLA

For more information visit the case page here or watch the case video here.

ABOUT NCLA

NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.

Download the full document

October 20, 2023 | U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Landmark NCLA Case Against Government Social Media Censorship
Washington, DC (October 20, 2023) — For the second time in eight days, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in one of NCLA’s cases. This afternoon the Court agreed to hear arguments over the Fifth Circuit’s grant of a preliminary injunction in Missouri v. Biden, a case brought on behalf of NCLA clients Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, and Aaron Kheriaty, and Ms. Jill Hines, alongside the Attorneys General of Louisiana and Missouri. The injunction would bar officials[i] from the White House, CDC, FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and Surgeon General’s office from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech. The New Civil Liberties Alliance welcomes this opportunity to defend the First Amendment rights of our clients in the U.S. Supreme Court.

A Fifth Circuit panel last month upheld the key components of U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s July 4 preliminary injunction order, prohibiting named federal officials from coercing or significantly encouraging social media companies to suppress legal speech. That decision vindicated NCLA’s clients, who have been blacklisted, shadow-banned, de-boosted, throttled, and suspended on social media as part of the government’s years-long censorship campaign orchestrated by the White House, CDC, FBI, CISA, and Surgeon General—among others.

The Biden Administration’s censorship regime has successfully suppressed perspectives contradicting government-approved views on hotly disputed topics such as whether natural immunity to Covid-19 exists, the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines, the virus’s origins, and mask mandate efficacy. The vast, coordinated, and well-documented effort has silenced influential, highly qualified voices including doctors and scientists like Drs. Bhattacharya, Kulldorff and Kheriaty, as well as those like Ms. Hines who have tried to raise awareness of issues. Though the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily stayed the Fifth Circuit’s injunction today, NCLA believes the Justices are ultimately unlikely to permit the egregious First Amendment abridgements this case has exposed.

The Fifth Circuit recognized that the Plaintiffs did “not challenge the social-media platforms’ content-moderation policies.” Rather, Plaintiffs challenged the government’s unlawful efforts to influence “enforcement of those policies.” The government gravely harmed the ability of NCLA’s clients to convey their views to the public, and it deprived Americans of their right to hear opinions that differ from the government’s. Judge Doughty strikingly described the Administration’s conduct as “arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States history” and “akin to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.” He was right, and the U.S. Supreme Court must not permit it.

NCLA released the following statements:

“We are disappointed Americans’ First Amendment rights will be vulnerable to government infringement until this case is decided. But we are confident this Court, as strong as it is on First Amendment issues, will rule against the government and uphold our clients’ rights and liberties.”
— John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA

“NCLA is thrilled to have the opportunity to vindicate the First Amendment rights of our clients, and all Americans, in the nation’s highest court. We are confident that after a thorough review of the disturbing facts in this important case—which involves unprecedented government-imposed, viewpoint-based censorship—the Court will recognize the grievous, unconstitutional nature of the government’s conduct and enjoin it.”
— Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

“If anything, the Fifth Circuit’s decision did not go far enough in enjoining the reprehensible conduct exposed in this case. The facts of this case show government agencies censored speech in a deliberate effort to control the narrative on several controversial topics ahead of the last election. The First Amendment forbids such censorship, and the Supreme Court must never allow such mischief again, if we are to keep our democracy.”
— Mark Chenoweth, President, NCLA

For more information visit the case page here or watch the case video here.

ABOUT NCLA

NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.

[i] The following members Executive Office of the President of the United States: White House Press Secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre; Counsel to the President, Stuart F. Delery; White House Partnerships Manager, Aisha Shah; Special Assistant to the President, Sarah Beran; Administrator of the United States Digital Service within the Office of Management and Budget, Mina Hsiang; White House National Climate Advisor, Ali Zaidi; White House Senior COVID-19 Advisor, formerly Andrew Slavitt; Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Digital Strategy, formerly Rob Flaherty; White House COVID-19 Director of Strategic Communications and Engagement, Dori Salcido; White House Digital Director for the COVID-19 Response Team, formerly Clarke Humphrey; Deputy Director of Strategic Communications and Engagement of the White House COVID-19 Response Team, formerly Benjamin Wakana; Deputy Director for Strategic Communications and External Engagement for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, formerly Subhan Cheema; White House COVID-19 Supply Coordinator, formerly Timothy W. Manning; and Chief Medical Advisor to the President, Dr. Hugh Auchincloss, along with their directors, administrators and employees. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy; and Chief Engagement Officer for the Surgeon General, Katharine Dealy, along with their directors, administrators and employees. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), and specifically the following employees: Carol Y. Crawford, Chief of the Digital Media Branch of the CDC Division of Public Affairs; Jay Dempsey, Social-media Team Leader, Digital Media Branch, CDC Division of Public Affairs; and Kate Galatas, CDC Deputy Communications Director. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and specifically the following employees: Laura Dehmlow, Section Chief, FBI Foreign Influence Task Force; and Elvis M. Chan, Supervisory Special Agent of Squad CY-1 in the FBI San Francisco Division. And the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”), and specifically the following employees: Jen Easterly, Director of CISA; Kim Wyman, Senior Cybersecurity Advisor and Senior Election Security Leader; and Lauren Protentis, Geoffrey Hale, Allison Snell, and Brian Scully.

Download the full document

October 3, 2023 | In NCLA Victory, Fifth Circuit Expands Injunction Against Government Social Media Censorship
Washington, DC (October 3, 2023) — Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted Plaintiffs’ petition for a panel rehearing and added the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to its preliminary injunction in Missouri v. Biden, barring the White House, U.S. Surgeon General’s office, CDC, FBI and now CISA officials from pressuring social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech. NCLA is pleased all these officials will be enjoined from infringing on the First Amendment rights of our clients, Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff and Aaron Kheriaty, and Ms. Jill Hines—and other brave Americans.

The Fifth Circuit’s new action expands upon its September 8 ruling that upheld the most important portions of U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s July 4 preliminary injunction order, prohibiting those officials from pressuring social media companies to suppress First Amendment-protected speech. The injunction vindicates Drs. Bhattacharya, Kulldorff and Kheriaty, and Ms. Hines, who have all been blacklisted, shadow-banned, de-boosted, throttled, and censored on social media as part of the Biden Administration’s years-long censorship campaign.

The Fifth Circuit recognized that the Plaintiffs did “not challenge the social-media platforms’ content-moderation policies,” instead challenging the government’s unlawful efforts to influence “enforcement of those policies.” The government gravely harmed the ability of NCLA’s clients to convey their views to the public, and it deprived Americans of their right to hear opinions that differ from the government’s. Judge Doughty strikingly described the Administration’s conduct as “arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States history” and “akin to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.”

The Biden Administration’s ongoing censorship campaign successfully suppressed perspectives contradicting government-approved views on hotly disputed topics such as whether natural immunity to Covid-19 exists and is as effective as that induced through vaccination, Covid-19 vaccine concerns, the virus’s origins, and mask mandate efficacy. The vast, coordinated effort silenced public voices, including influential doctors and scientists.

“CISA—working in close connection with the FBI—held regular industry meetings with the platforms concerning their moderation policies, pushing them to adopt CISA’s proposed practices for addressing ‘mis-, dis-, and mal-information,’” the Fifth Circuit wrote in its new order. “CISA also engaged in ‘switchboarding’ operations, meaning … CISA officials acted as an intermediary for third parties by forwarding flagged content[.]”

The decision constituted a departure from the panel’s September ruling, which held that CISA had worked with the social media companies in a constitutionally permissible manner. Reassessing the facts, the Court this time concluded that “CISA’s role went beyond mere information sharing. Like the CDC for COVID-related claims, CISA told the platforms whether certain election-related claims were true or false. CISA’s actions apparently led to moderation policies being altered and content being removed or demoted by the recipient platforms.” The Fifth Circuit stayed the order for an additional 10 days, possibly to give the government time to petition for a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.

NCLA released the following statement:

“NCLA is pleased the Fifth Circuit has recognized that it erred in letting CISA—one of the worst violators of Americans’ First Amendment rights—off the hook, and we’re glad that CISA is now included in the injunction prohibiting censorship. We look forward to vindicating our clients’ rights in the Supreme Court, which we are confident will also recognize the egregious and intolerable nature of the government’s conduct.”
— Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

For more information visit the case page here or watch the case video here.

ABOUT NCLA

NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.

Download the full document

September 20, 2023 | NCLA Asks U.S. Supreme Court Not to Stay Injunction Against Government Social Media Censorship
Washington, DC (September 20, 2023) — Earlier this month the federal government petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the preliminary injunction issued by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Missouri v. Biden, which bars officials from the White House, CDC, FBI and U.S. Surgeon General’s office from pressuring social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech. Today, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, together with the Louisiana and Missouri attorneys-general, filed a response urging the high Court to allow the preliminary injunction to take effect, protecting Americans’ First Amendment rights while the litigation proceeds.

On September 8, a Fifth Circuit panel upheld the most significant components of U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s preliminary injunction prohibiting the aforementioned officials from pressuring, coercing, or significantly encouraging social media companies to suppress constitutionally protected speech. This decision vindicated NCLA clients Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff and Aaron Kheriaty, and Ms. Jill Hines, who have all been blacklisted, shadow-banned, de-boosted, throttled, and censored on social media as part of the years-long censorship campaign orchestrated by the Surgeon General, CDC, and other Biden Administration officials. The government has failed to present a single convincing argument for staying the injunction any further.

The Biden Administration’s censorship regime has successfully suppressed perspectives contradicting government-approved views on hotly disputed topics such as whether natural immunity to Covid-19 exists, safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines, the virus’s origins, and mask mandate efficacy. The vast, coordinated, and well-documented effort has silenced influential voices including doctors and scientists like Drs. Bhattacharya, Kulldorff and Kheriaty, as well as those like Jill Hines who have tried to raise awareness of issues. The Supreme Court is unlikely to reverse the Fifth Circuit’s injunction against such abridgment of the First Amendment.

The Fifth Circuit recognized that the Plaintiffs did “not challenge the social-media platforms’ content-moderation policies.” Rather, Plaintiffs challenged the government’s unlawful efforts to influence “enforcement of those policies.” The government gravely harmed the ability of NCLA’s clients to convey their views to the public, and it deprived Americans of their right to hear opinions that differ from the government’s. Judge Doughty strikingly described the Administration’s conduct as “arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States history” and “akin to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.” The Supreme Court should allow the Fifth Circuit’s order enjoining that conduct to proceed without delay. Otherwise, Americans’ First Amendment rights will be denied.

NCLA released the following statements:

“Apparently the Biden Administration hasn’t gotten tired of losing. The government’s stay application is nothing more than a shameless attempt to convince the nation’s highest court to allow it to continue to violate Americans’ First Amendment rights. We’re confident the Court will recognize this and uphold the lower courts’ injunction. We look forward to seeing our clients’ rights vindicated yet again.”
— Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

“The federal government has no right to police the truth or keep narratives with which it disagrees from appearing on social media. The fact that the White House, CDC, FBI, and Surgeon General’s office want to keep censoring disfavored viewpoints on social-media platforms is abhorrent. Fortunately, the First Amendment protects the rights of the people and the States to express their views and hear the views of others without federal interference.”
— Mark Chenoweth, President and General Counsel, NCLA

For more information visit the case page here or watch the case video here.

Download the full document

September 8, 2023 | In NCLA Victory, Fifth Circuit Upholds Key Part of Government Social Media Censorship Injunction
Washington, DC (September 8, 2023) — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has agreed with NCLA that officials from the White House, CDC, FBI and the U.S. Surgeon General’s office violated the First Amendment by coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor our clients. The panel upheld the most important portion of U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s preliminary injunction order in Missouri, et al. v. Biden, et al., prohibiting those officials from pressuring social media companies to suppress constitutionally protected speech. The panel decision modified the injunction against federal officials to now read:

“Defendants, and their employees and agents, shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech. That includes, but is not limited to, compelling the platforms to act, such as by intimating that some form of punishment will follow a failure to comply with any request, or supervising, directing, or otherwise meaningfully controlling the social-media companies’ decision-making processes.”

The New Civil Liberties Alliance celebrates this landmark victory for our clients, Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff and Aaron Kheriaty, and Ms. Jill Hines. At the government’s request, the Fifth Circuit stayed the order for 10 days to give the government time to petition for a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.

As today’s decision said, “[The platforms] gave the officials access to an expedited reporting system, downgraded or removed flagged posts, and deplatformed users.” The panel continued, “the platforms also changed their internal policies to capture more flagged content and sent steady reports on their moderation activities to the officials … through the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2022 congressional election, and [that] continues to this day.”

The Biden Administration’s years-long censorship campaign has suppressed perspectives contradicting government-approved views on hotly disputed topics like whether natural immunity to Covid-19 exists, Covid-19 vaccine concerns, the virus’s origins, and mask mandate efficacy. The vast, coordinated censorship campaign has silenced public voices including influential doctors and scientists. Drs. Bhattacharya, Kulldorff and Kheriaty, and Ms. Hines have all been blacklisted, shadow-banned, de-boosted, throttled, and censored on social media.

Importantly, the Court recognized that the Plaintiffs did “not challenge the social-media platforms’ content-moderation policies.” Rather, Plaintiffs challenged the government’s unlawful efforts to influence “enforcement of those policies.” The government gravely harmed the ability of NCLA’s clients to convey their views to the public, and it deprived Americans of their right to hear opinions that differ from the government’s. Judge Doughty strikingly described the Administration’s conduct as “arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States history” and “akin to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.” Today’s order should stop that conduct.

NCLA released the following statements:

“In an unprecedented, historic decision, the Fifth Circuit has recognized that the conduct of the White House, CDC, Surgeon General, and FBI violated Americans’ First Amendment rights. The government cannot coerce or encourage social media companies to censor views it dislikes. This decision vindicates the Plaintiffs’ rights and protects the free speech of all Americans.”
— Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

“The Biden Administration’s coordinated censorship campaign against the American people ends today. The Fifth Circuit’s decision details blatantly unlawful conduct by multiple agencies, and its order forbids the government’s widespread contempt for the First Amendment from continuing in no uncertain terms.”
— Mark Chenoweth, President and General Counsel, NCLA

For more information visit the case page here or watch the case video here.

ABOUT NCLA

NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.

Download the full document

August 7, 2023 | NCLA Asks Fifth Circuit to Affirm Injunction Against Government Social Media Censorship
Washington, DC (August 7, 2023) – The New Civil Liberties Alliance, alongside the attorneys-general of Missouri and Louisiana, have filed a brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to affirm U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s preliminary injunction prohibiting a number of federal agencies and government officials from pressuring or coordinating with social media companies to suppress First Amendment-protected speech. Federal government defendants in Missouri, et al., v. Biden, et al. have appealed to the Fifth Circuit to overturn the injunction, which protects Americans’ free speech rights on social media. NCLA will participate in oral arguments for this landmark case on August 10 in New Orleans.

Federal officials have threatened, pressured, and colluded with social media platforms in a years-long campaign to suppress perspectives that contradict government-approved views on hotly disputed topics like mask mandate efficacy, Covid-19 vaccine concerns and the virus’s origins. The censorship has silenced influential doctors and scientists including NCLA’s clients, Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff and Aaron Kheriaty, as well as activist Jill Hines. All have been blacklisted, shadow-banned, de-boosted, throttled, and censored on social media.

The government has gravely harmed the ability of NCLA’s clients to convey their views to the public, and it has deprived Americans of their right to hear perspectives that depart from the government’s. Judge Doughty correctly determined that the plaintiffs will likely succeed in proving the government violated the First Amendment, accurately describing the Administration’s conduct as “arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States history” and “akin to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.”

Federal government defendants in this case have failed to provide a single example to substantiate their allegation that the injunction interferes with legitimate government speech. The government’s argument that the injunction is too vague also doesn’t hold water. Judge Doughty has been very specific in detailing what conduct the government defendants may and may not participate in, never preventing them from addressing criminal speech on social media.

NCLA released the following statements:

“The government’s unconstitutional censorship regime stifled scientific debate on topics of critical importance during the Covid era, including lockdowns, school closures, mandates, and the origins of the virus. This stifling in turn led to the adoption of policies that years later have proven more harmful than beneficial. Yet the Biden Administration wants to continue to use its clout to silence dissenters with impunity. We look forward to seeing the Fifth Circuit vindicate NCLA’s clients, who like all Americans have been victims of this unlawful enterprise.”
— Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

“The government argues that it is no longer interested in prior censorship topics, that it will be harmed more than individuals if it cannot continue to meddle in social media, and that it doesn’t understand the order the judge issued. To the extent that the government addresses the substance of what it has done, it claims that its repeated threats of regulatory reprisal do not amount to coercion. But coercion is not required to violate the First Amendment, and any regulated entity would see things differently. Plaintiffs are confident that the government violated the First Amendment and that the lower court crafted an appropriate injunction.”
— Zhonette Brown, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA

For more information visit the case page here or watch the case video here.

ABOUT NCLA

NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.

Download the full document

July 18, 2023 | NCLA Urges Appeals Court Not to Stay Injunction Barring Government Social Media Censorship
Washington, DC (July 18, 2023) – Federal government defendants in the case of Missouri, et al., v. Biden, et al. made a motion to stay a preliminary injunction that would prohibit specific federal agencies and White House officials from pressuring or coordinating with social media companies to suppress First Amendment-protected speech. The New Civil Liberties Alliance has co-filed a brief calling for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to let stand U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s preliminary injunction during the pendency of the federal defendants’ appeal, thereby protecting Americans’ free-speech rights to participate in social media.

Federal officials have threatened, pressured, and colluded with social media platforms in a years-long campaign to suppress perspectives that contradict government-approved views on hotly disputed topics like mask mandate efficacy, Covid-19 vaccine concerns and the virus’s origins. The campaign has specifically targeted influential scientific figures like NCLA clients, Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff and Aaron Kheriaty, as well as activist Jill Hines. All have been blacklisted, shadow-banned, de-boosted, throttled, and censored on social media.

The government has clearly violated the First Amendment rights of NCLA’s clients, seriously harming their ability to convey their views to the public. Their ordeals were a driving force in support of Judge Doughty’s preliminary injunction. Federal censorship also disrupts the states’ critical ability to hear their own citizens’ voices on significant political and social issues. Even after several months, federal government defendants in this case have failed to prove a single example in which the injunction would interfere with legitimate government speech.

In his Fourth of July memorandum ruling on request for preliminary injunction, Judge Doughty wrote, “Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it in terms of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, 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.’”

NCLA released the following statements:

“The injunction allows the Government to fulfill its legitimate functions while prohibiting routine and persistent interference with First Amendment rights to free speech. It should not be stayed while this case proceeds because the injury to our clients and the American people is far greater than the non-existent harms the Government posits from prohibiting it from silencing people.”
— John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA

“Judge Doughty could not have been more careful in detailing exceptions to the preliminary injunction in order to protect valid government interests in curtailing unlawful speech. Nevertheless, the government cries wolf and claims otherwise. Apparently, what the government really wants is to continue shutting down protected speech.”
— Mark Chenoweth, President and General Counsel, NCLA

For more information visit the case page here or watch the case video here.

ABOUT NCLA 

NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.

Download the full document

July 5, 2023 | Victory! Federal Judge Rules Biden Administration Cannot Censor Americans on Social Media
Washington, DC (July 5, 2023) – Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana has granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting several federal agencies and specific White House officials from pressuring or coordinating with social media companies to suppress constitutionally-protected speech. The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonpartisan nonprofit civil liberties group, celebrates this major victory for its clients Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff and Aaron Kheriaty and Jill Hines in the case of Missouri, et al. v. Biden, et al.

Three of NCLA’s clients are distinguished scientists who, because of state action, were blacklisted, shadow-banned, de-boosted, throttled, and censored on social media for merely articulating views opposed to government-approved views on Covid-19 restrictions and regulations. Jill Hines was a dissenter from mandatory vaccines and lockdowns who also had her media posts throttled. Their ordeal was part of a lawless and expansive campaign by federal officials across at least eleven agencies and sub-agencies who employed illicit tactics—including coercion, collusion and coordination—on social media companies to suppress the airing of disfavored perspectives. The agencies directed such companies to censor viewpoints that conflicted with federal government messaging on topics ranging from Covid-19 to elections.

Judge Doughty’s new order applies to agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services, State Department, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, FBI and officials like White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Counsel to the President Stuart Delery. They are prohibited from threatening, pressuring, or coercing social media companies to suppress or remove posted content featuring protected speech.

In his timely July 4 memorandum ruling on a request for a preliminary injunction, Judge Doughty wrote, “Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it in terms of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, 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 the measured order of injunction Judge Doughty did not prohibit the traditional government functions of informing media, social or otherwise, of criminal activity, or national security threats on their platforms, including illegal foreign efforts to suppress voting. In short, criminality can be challenged, not dissent.

Judge Doughty’s decision is the latest in a string of recent NCLA victories. On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Biden Administration’s student loan debt cancellation plan was unlawful, and NCLA had filed an amicus curiae brief advocating for that outcome.

NCLA released the following statements:

“This Order rests squarely on the First Amendment’s protection of speech and the traditional wide-ranging views it allows to circulate in this country. Our clients were not saying or doing anything remotely unlawful. But because the Government disagreed with their views they were thrown out of the modern public square. That should not happen in America, and with this Order, it won’t.”
— John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Council, NCLA

“Judge Doughty’s ruling in the Missouri v. Biden case reinforces what the New Civil Liberties Alliance has been saying from the start of this case. The federal government has been deliberately censoring speech protected by the First Amendment. Its conduct has not merely threatened free speech; our government has actively suppressed free speech in an orchestrated, unprecedented and entirely unlawful manner. The Biden Administration’s outrageous assault on the Constitution and on the civil liberties of Americans must end. Judge Doughty’s preliminary injunction will help immensely.”
— Mark Chenoweth, President and General Counsel, NCLA

For more information visit the case page here or watch the case video here.

ABOUT NCLA

NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.

Download the full document

March 23, 2023 | NCLA Releases Video Depositions in Social Media Censorship Suit After Judge Orders Case to Be Heard
Washington, DC (March 23, 2023) – NCLA has released six video depositions taken in its federal lawsuit, State of Missouri, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al., which provide more clarity on the role that government actors, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, played in censoring people on social media during the pandemic. Earlier this week, Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana denied government defendants’ motion to dismiss, ruling that the case shall continue: “The Court finds that the Complaint alleges significant encouragement and coercion that converts the otherwise private conduct of censorship on social media platforms into state action, and is unpersuaded by Defendants’ arguments to the contrary.”

NCLA, the Attorney General of Missouri, and the Attorney General of Louisiana conducted depositions of Elvis Chan – FBI Supervisory Special Agent, Carol Crawford – CDC Chief of the Digital Media Branch, Dr. Anthony Fauci – NIAID Director and White House Chief Medical Advisor, Daniel Kimmage – Acting Coordinator of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, Brian Scully – Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and Eric Waldo – Senior Advisor to the Surgeon General of the United States.

As revealed in Elvis Chan’s deposition, the FBI played a major role in working with Big Tech companies to censor speech. Actions ranged from weekly meetings with social media companies to demanding takedowns of specific accounts and facilitating suppression of certain stories. Chan observed that the platforms became far more aggressive in removing misinformation during the 2020 election cycle than in previous election cycles, and they have remained so.

In his deposition, Dr. Fauci testified “I do not recall” 174 times, and “I don’t remember,” at least 212 times. Other evidence—including his own emails and past statements—cast substantial doubt on Dr. Fauci’s claim to have a failing memory. Moreover, his deposition testimony—that he genuinely believed Covid had natural origins—conflicts with emails he exchanged with scientists in early 2020, indicating that he believed the lab leak hypothesis could be accurate. Those emails suggest Dr. Fauci and other scientists made a concerted effort to conceal that information from the public by commissioning scientific papers purporting to confirm that the virus came from a wet market, possibly because they had funded gain-of-function research and feared being held responsible for the pandemic.

This subject, along with many others, are thoroughly discussed in the recently filed Supplemental Preliminary Injunction Brief and Proposed Findings of Fact in this case. These extensive new filings are the first written documents to put together all major facts gathered through discovery and from the depositions thus far. They paint a comprehensive picture of an administration and federal officials engaging in a lawless, expansive censorship campaign that employed illicit tactics against social media companies to suppress the airing of disfavored perspectives on Covid-19 and certain other topics.

NCLA released the following statement:

“These depositions further confirm what other discovery in the case has already demonstrated: dozens of members of the federal government, including unelected bureaucrats like Dr. Fauci, orchestrated a campaign to shut down debate about Covid-19 related subjects, and they deceived the American public on issues ranging from the lab leak theory to efficacy of masks to the protection offered by naturally acquired immunity to whether the vaccines could prevent disease transmission. Now that the judge has allowed this case to proceed, we look forward to learning even more as the case enters the merits discovery phase.”
Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

 For more information visit the case page here or watch the case video here.

 ABOUT NCLA

NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.

Download the full document

March 20, 2023 | In NCLA Win, Federal Judge Rejects Motion to Dismiss Government-Induced Censorship Lawsuit
Washington, DC (March 20, 2023) – In a thorough and well-reasoned decision, Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana has denied government defendants’ motion to dismiss in State of Missouri, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al. The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group, represents renowned epidemiologists Drs. Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, as well as Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Ms. Jill Hines, in a lawsuit that has exposed an elaborate, multi-agency federal government censorship regime. Judge Doughty wrote, “The Court finds that the Complaint alleges significant encouragement and coercion that converts the otherwise private conduct of censorship on social media platforms into state action, and is unpersuaded by Defendants’ arguments to the contrary.”

Discovery in the lawsuit unequivocally establishes that at least eleven federal agencies and sub-agencies, including CDC and DHS, directed social media companies to censor viewpoints that conflict with the federal government’s messaging on topics ranging from Covid-19 to elections. Federal officials engaged in a lawless, expansive censorship campaign that employed illicit tactics—including coercion, collusion and coordination—on social media companies to suppress the airing of disfavored perspectives on Covid-19 and other topics. As a direct result of state action, NCLA’s clients were blacklisted, shadow-banned, de-boosted, throttled, and censored, merely for articulating views opposed to government-approved views on Covid-19 restrictions and regulations. Judge Doughty held that “Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged state action under the theories of joint participation, entwinement, and the combining of factors such as subsidization, authorization, and encouragement.”

In confirming Plaintiffs’ standing, Judge Doughty said, “The threat of future censorship is substantial, and the history of past censorship is strong evidence that the threat of further censorship is not illusory or merely speculative.” Judge Doughty also found Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries-in-fact are “redressable by the Court,” and that Plaintiffs had demonstrated sovereign immunity does not bar their First Amendment, ultra vires, or APA claims.

NCLA looks forward to continuing to litigate this vitally important First Amendment case before the Court. 

NCLA released the following statements:

“The US government used its vast power over social media and big tech to censor legitimate scientific and policy discussion about Covid during the pandemic. This was a gross violation of basic American civil liberties. Had free speech been permitted instead, perhaps many fewer Americans would have been harmed by destructive and epidemiologically useless policies like lockdowns, school closures, vaccine discrimination, toddler masking and much else. Missouri v. Biden is the most important First Amendment legal case in a generation, and I am pleased that it will be proceeding forward.”
— Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Plaintiff, State of Missouri, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al.

“Today’s remarkable decision marks an important victory for free speech in America. Unlike other courts before it, the district court recognizes that the federal government’s massive, far-reaching campaign of coercion and pressure on social media platforms to censor views that threaten the administration’s agenda is unlawful and violates our clients’ First Amendment rights.”
— Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

“The Court has seen through the government’s unrelenting efforts to deny responsibility for using its vast power to silence thousands upon thousands of Americans online, often removing factually true information the government did not like. The ruse that it was just a coincidence that all the tech companies silenced the same people saying the same things at the same time has been exposed for the canard it is. This was a whole-of-government effort to take true information from the public square, which the Constitution does not countenance.”
— John J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA

“The federal government must not play any role in policing or tampering with lawful, private speech on social media. The government cannot use private companies as proxies to do indirectly what the Constitution forbids it from doing directly. The First Amendment has no secret back door through which governments can manipulate social media messages—especially not to ban or censor disfavored viewpoints on Covid-19 or other topics.”
— Mark Chenoweth, President and General Counsel, NCLA

For more information visit the case page here or watch the case video here.

ABOUT NCLA

NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.

Download the full document

September 1, 2022 | NCLA Suit Uncovers Army of Federal Bureaucrats Coercing Social-Media Companies to Censor Speech
Washington, DC (September 1, 2022) – The New Civil Liberties Alliance, the Attorney General of Missouri, and the Attorney General of Louisiana, have filed a lawsuit that blows the lid off a sprawling federal censorship regime that will shock the conscience of Americans. The joint statement on discovery disputes in the lawsuit, State of Missouri ex rel. Schmitt, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al., reveals scores of federal officials across at least eleven federal agencies have secretly communicated with social-media platforms to censor and suppress private speech federal officials disfavor. This unlawful enterprise has been wildly successful.

Under the First Amendment, the federal government may not police private speech nor pick winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas. But that is precisely what the government has done—and is still doing—on a massive scale not previously divulged. Multiple agencies’ communications demonstrate that the federal government has exerted tremendous pressure on social-media companies—pressure to which companies have repeatedly bowed.

Discovery has unveiled an army of federal censorship bureaucrats, including officials arrayed at the White House, HHS, DHS, CISA, the CDC, NIAID, the Office of the Surgeon General, the Census Bureau, the FDA, the FBI, the State Department, the Treasury Department, and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Communications show these federal officials are fully aware that the pressure they exert is an effective and necessary way to induce social-media platforms to increase censorship. The head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency even griped about the need to overcome social-media companies’ “hesitation” to work with the government.

These actions have precipitated an unprecedented rise in censorship and suppression of free speech—including core political speech—on social-media platforms. Many viewpoints and speakers have been unlawfully and unconstitutionally silenced or suppressed in the modern public square. This unlawful government interference violates the fundamental right of free speech for all Americans, whether or not they are on social media. More discovery is needed to uncover the full extent of this regime—i.e., the identities of other White House and agency officials involved and the nature and content of their communications with social-media companies.

The government has been uncooperative and has resisted complying with the discovery order every step of the way—especially with regard to Anthony Fauci’s communications. Defendants claim, for example, that White House communications are privileged, even though such privilege does not apply to external communications. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana should overrule the government defendants’ objections and order them to supply this highly relevant, responsive, and probative information immediately.

NCLA released the following statements:

“If there was ever any doubt the federal government was behind censorship of Americans who dared to dissent from official Covid messaging, that doubt has been erased. The shocking extent of the government’s involvement in silencing Americans, through coercing social-media companies, has now been revealed. These bureaucrats continue to resist efforts to expose the degree of their unconstitutional actions every step of the way.”
— Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

 “The incredible extent of government interference with the speech rights of Americans must be seen to be believed. Yet, even with all that this case has revealed, the government defendants are still resisting their obligation to disclose the names of all the public servants who were involved in this unlawful scheme.”
— John J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA

 For more information visit the case page here.

 ABOUT NCLA

NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.

Download the full document

August 2, 2022 | NCLA Clients Join Missouri and Louisiana Suit Challenging Gov’t-Directed Social Media Censorship

Washington, DC (August 2, 2022) – Public statements, emails, and recent publicly released documents establish that the President of the United States and other senior officials in the Biden Administration violated the First Amendment by directing social-media companies to censor viewpoints that conflict with the government’s messaging on Covid-19. Today, the New Civil Liberties Alliance 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 restrictions.

This insidious censorship was the direct result of the federal government’s ongoing 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 that only recently were made public.

Government-induced censorship is achieved through a wide variety of mechanisms, ranging from complete bans, temporary bans, “shadow bans” (where often neither the user nor his audience is notified of the suppression of speech), deboosting, de-platforming, de-monetizing, restricting access to content, requiring users to take down content, and imposing warning labels that require click-through to access content, among others. These methods also include temporary and permanent suspensions of disfavored speakers.

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—constitutes unlawful government action. The federal government is deciding whose voices and ideas may be heard, and whose voices and ideas must be silenced. Moreover, this state action deprives Americans of their right to hear the views of those who are being silenced, a First Amendment corollary of the right to free speech. The government’s policy of coercing social-media companies to censor Plaintiffs’ viewpoints should be declared unlawful and halted immediately.

NCLA released the following statements:

“The Biden Administration’s involvement in silencing the voices of those who have critiqued its responses to Covid-19, through pressure exerted on social media companies, is unprecedented in nature and degree. Two of the plaintiffs, Drs. Bhattacharya and Kulldorff, are among the world’s most renowned epidemiologists, and had crucial insights to share on the flawed reasoning and science underlying lockdowns and mask and vaccine mandates. Dr. Kheriaty, a professor of medical ethics, and Ms. Hines, a consumer and human rights advocate, also offered thoughtful, reasoned opposition to government-imposed Covid-19 restrictions. The government’s sweeping campaign to suppress the perspectives of the plaintiffs, and others like them, represents the most severe abrogation of the First Amendment in modern times, and we look forward to seeing this constitutional atrocity rectified in a court of law.”
Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

“The government may not work through private entities to accomplish censorship that the First Amendment forbids the government from doing directly. Yet that is precisely what these federal defendants have been up to. NCLA is delighted to join forces with these state attorneys-general to reverse this constitutional outrage and restore free speech to the social media platforms that are today’s public square.”
Mark Chenoweth, President and General Counsel, NCLA

For more information visit the case page here.

ABOUT NCLA

NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.

Download the full document

 

OPINION

January 8, 2023 | The White House Covid Censorship Machine

Newly released documents show that the White House has played a major role in censoring Americans on social media. Email exchanges between Rob Flaherty, the White House’s director of digital media, and social-media executives prove the companies put Covid censorship policies in place in response to relentless, coercive pressure from the White House—not voluntarily. The emails emerged Jan. 6 in the discovery phase of Missouri v. Biden, a free-speech case brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana and four private plaintiffs represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance.

On March 14, 2021, Mr. Flaherty emailed a Facebook executive (whose name we’ve redacted as a courtesy) with the subject line “You are hiding the ball” and a link to a Washington Post article about Facebook’s own research into “the spread of ideas that contribute to vaccine hesitancy,” as the paper put it. “I think there is a misunderstanding,” the executive wrote back. “I don’t think this is a misunderstanding,” Mr. Flaherty replied. “We are gravely concerned that your service is one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy—period. . . . We want to know that you’re trying, we want to know how we can help, and we want to know that you’re not playing a shell game. . . . This would all be a lot easier if you would just be straight with us.”

On March 21, after failing to placate Mr. Flaherty, the Facebook executive sent an email detailing the company’s planned policy changes. They included “removing vaccine misinformation” and “reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation.” Facebook characterized this material as “often-true content” that “can be framed as sensation, alarmist, or shocking.” Facebook pledged to “remove these Groups, Pages, and Accounts when they are disproportionately promoting this sensationalized content.”

In that exchange, Mr. Flaherty demanded to know what Facebook was doing to “limit the spread of viral content” on WhatsApp, a private message app, especially “given its reach in immigrant communities and communities of color.” The company responded three weeks later with a lengthy list of promises.

On April 9, Mr. Flaherty asked “what actions and changes you’re making to ensure . . . you’re not making our country’s vaccine hesitancy problem worse.” He faulted the company for insufficient zeal in earlier efforts to control political speech: “In the electoral context, you tested and deployed an algorithmic shift that promoted quality news and information about the election. . . . You only did this, however, after an election that you helped increase skepticism in, and an insurrection which was plotted, in large part, by your platform. And then you turned it back off. I want some assurances, based in data, that you are not doing the same thing again here.” The executive’s response: “Understood.”

On April 14, Mr. Flaherty pressed the executive about why “the top post about vaccines today” is Tucker Carlson “saying they don’t work”: “I want to know what ‘Reduction’ actually looks like,” he said. The exec responded: “Running this down now.”

On April 23, Mr. Flaherty sent the executive an internal memo that he claimed had been circulating in the White House. It asserts that “Facebook plays a major role in the spread of COVID vaccine misinformation” and accuses the company of, among other things, “failure to monitor events hosting anti-vaccine and COVID disinformation” and “directing attention to COVID skeptics/anti-vaccine ‘trusted’ messengers.”

On May 10, the executive sent Mr. Flaherty a list of steps Facebook had taken “to increase vaccine acceptance.” Mr. Flaherty scoffed, “Hard to take any of this seriously when you’re actively promoting anti-vaccine pages in search,” and linked to an NBC reporter’s tweet. The executive wrote back: “Thanks Rob—both of the accounts featured in this tweet have been removed from Instagram entirely for breaking our policies.”

President Biden, press secretary Jen Psaki and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy later publicly vowed to hold the platforms accountable if they didn’t heighten censorship. On July 16, 2021, a reporter asked Mr. Biden his “message to platforms like Facebook.” He replied, “They’re killing people.” Mr. Biden later claimed he meant users, not platforms, were killing people. But the record shows Facebook itself was the target of the White House’s pressure campaign.

Mr. Flaherty also strong-armed Google in April 2021, accusing YouTube (which it owns) of “funneling” people into vaccine hesitancy. He said this concern was “shared at the highest (and I mean the highest) levels of the WH,” and required “more work to be done.” Mr. Flaherty demanded to know what further measures Google would take to remove disfavored content. An executive responded that the company was working to “address your concerns related to Covid-19 misinformation.”

These emails establish a clear pattern: Mr. Flaherty, representing the White House, expresses anger at the companies’ failure to censor Covid-related content to his satisfaction. The companies change their policies to address his demands. As a result, thousands of Americans were silenced for questioning government-approved Covid narratives. Two of the Missouri plaintiffs, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, are epidemiologists whom multiple social-media platforms censored at the government’s behest for expressing views that were scientifically well-founded but diverged from the government line—for instance, that children and adults with natural immunity from prior infection don’t need Covid vaccines.

Emails made public through earlier lawsuits, Freedom of Information Act requests and Elon Musk’s release of the Twitter Files had already exposed a sprawling censorship regime involving the White House as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies. The government directed tech companies to remove certain types of material and even to censor specific posts and accounts. Again, these included truthful messages casting doubt on the efficacy of masks and challenging Covid-19 vaccine mandates.

The First Amendment bars government from engaging in viewpoint-based censorship. The state-action doctrine bars government from circumventing constitutional strictures by suborning private companies to accomplish forbidden ends indirectly.

Defenders of the government have fallen back on the claim that cooperation by the tech companies was voluntary, from which they conclude that the First Amendment isn’t implicated. The reasoning is dubious, but even if it were valid, the premise has now been proved false.

Appeared in the January 9, 2023, print edition as ‘The White House Covid Censorship Machine’. The Flaherty emails demonstrate that the federal government unlawfully coerced the companies in an effort to ensure that Americans would be exposed only to state-approved information about Covid-19. As a result of that unconstitutional state action, Americans were given the false impression of a scientific “consensus” on critically important issues around Covid-19. A reckoning for the government’s unlawful, deceptive and dangerous conduct is under way in court.

 


December 12, 2022 | Is Social-Media Censorship a Crime?

Amid growing revelations about government involvement in social-media censorship, it’s no longer enough to talk simply about tech censorship. The problem should be understood as gov-tech censorship. The Biden White House has threatened tech companies and federal agencies have pressed them to censor disfavored opinions and users. So it’s time to ask about accountability.

Will there be legal consequences for government officials, for the companies, or for their personnel who cooperate in the gov-tech censorship of dissent on Covid-19, election irregularities or other matters? Cooperation between government officials and private parties to suppress speech could be considered a criminal conspiracy to violate civil rights. The current administration won’t entertain such a theory, but a future one might.

Section 241 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code provides: “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person . . . in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same, . . . they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

This post-Civil War statute responded to the depredations of the Ku Klux Klan and similar private organizations. Then as now, government officers sometimes relied on private allies to accomplish what they couldn’t—sometimes violently, sometimes more subtly. Whether for government officers or cooperating private parties, Section 241 makes conspiracy to violate civil rights a crime.

Section 241 was long applied cautiously—for instance to protect against involuntary servitude and abuses of detained persons. But now it is being applied more expansively. Last year a federal grand jury indicted Douglass Mackey under Section 241 for allegedly interfering with the right to vote by coordinating with four unindicted co-conspirators to distribute memes claiming that voters could cast ballots for Hillary Clinton via text message or hashtag. (Mr. Mackey protests that his memes were satire and thus constitutionally protected speech.)

Because the First Amendment doesn’t bar private parties from independently suppressing speech, Section 241 would apply to tech censorship only if government officers, acting as part of a conspiracy, have violated the Constitution. Doctrine on Section 241 requires this underlying constitutional violation to be clear. But clarity isn’t elusive. The type of suppression most clearly barred by the First Amendment was the 17th-century English censorship imposed partly through cooperative private entities—universities and the Stationers’ Company, the printers trade guild.

Government remains bound by the First Amendment even when it works through private cutouts. There would be no purpose to a Bill of Rights if government could evade it by using private entities to do its dirty work. As the Supreme Court put it in Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Commission (1926), “It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.”

The First Amendment’s text confirms the unconstitutionality of such workarounds. Any “prohibiting” of the free exercise of religion violates the amendment. In contrast, a mere “abridging” of the freedom of speech is unconstitutional. The government thus violates the latter merely by abridging or reducing it.

Little coercion or even economic pressure is necessary for a free-exercise violation. But free-speech violations, at least according to the text, don’t need even a gentle prohibition.

The history, logic and text underscore the unconstitutionality of returning to 17th-century-style censorship through private cooperation. The violation is all the clearer because tech cooperation often occurs in the shadow of explicit or hinted government threats—say, to tighten tech’s regulatory framework.

The other main issue in prosecutions under Section 241 is specific intent. But most of the tech companies seem to have the specific intent to work with the government in suppressing speech. A prosecutor wouldn’t have to show that private participants self-consciously understood the unconstitutionality of what the government was doing. Yet it would be relevant that some private participants recognized they were helping the government accomplish what in the government might be an unconstitutional act. As Renee De Resta of the Stanford Internet Observatory acknowledged on video, private assistance was necessary because there were “very real First Amendment questions” about what the government could do by itself. The observatory is part of a consortium, the Election Integrity Partnership, that developed government expectations of censorship into specific requests.

None of this is to predict what courts will do with criminal charges under Section 241. Nor is it to say that the next administration would or should bring conspiracy prosecutions. That will depend on the administration and the particulars of each case. But at least some those involved in the censorship—whether in government or the private sector—may eventually face sobering legal issues.

Such accountability is constitutionally desirable—not for reasons of retribution but because without accountability, the censorship will persist. The platforms probably will reassure their directors, officers and censorship review-board members that there’s little to worry about. That may turn out to be correct. Section 241 is sufficiently broad that prosecutors should hesitate to pursue it in marginal cases.

But there’s nothing marginal about the most massive system of censorship in the nation’s history. If the gov-tech partnership to suppress speech isn’t a conspiracy to interfere in the enjoyment of the freedom of speech, what is?

Government officials have little excuse. And after this fall’s revelations—ranging from the portal for Homeland Security censorship requests to the FBI’s role in suppressing information about the Hunter Biden laptop—company employees can no longer plead ignorance about government involvement. As for the companies, they have been saying the censorship is their editorial choice—so can they now avoid the problem by saying they buckled under threat?

The companies and individuals involved in the censorship need to decide where they stand. Perhaps it is time for them to distance themselves from the censorship. Are they comfortable with a conspiracy to violate civil rights? Even if that doesn’t bother them, are they willing to risk prosecution? They may assume, with some justification, that the Justice Department will hesitate to prosecute, even in a future administration. But would you bet the farm on that?

 


September 21, 2022 | The U.S. Government’s Vast New Privatized Censorship Regime

One warm weekend in October of 2020, three impeccably credentialed epidemiologists—Jayanta Bhattacharya, Sunetra Gupta, and Martin Kulldorff, of Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard Universities respectively—gathered with a few journalists, writers, and economists at an estate in the Berkshires where the American Institute for Economic Research had brought together critics of lockdowns and other COVID-related government restrictions. On Sunday morning shortly before the guests departed, the scientists encapsulated their views—that lockdowns do more harm than good, and that resources should be devoted to protecting the vulnerable rather than shutting society down—in a joint communique dubbed the “Great Barrington Declaration,” after the town in which it was written.

The declaration began circulating on social media and rapidly garnered signatures, including from other highly credentialed scientists. Most mainstream news outlets and the scientists they chose to quote denounced the declaration in no uncertain terms. When contacted by reporters, Drs. Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins of the NIH publicly and vociferously repudiated the “dangerous” declaration, smearing the scientists—all generally considered to be at the top of their fields—as “fringe epidemiologists.” Over the next several months, the three scientists faced a barrage of condemnation: They were called eugenicists and anti-vaxxers; it was falsely asserted that they were “Koch-funded” and that they had written the declaration for financial gain. Attacks on the Great Barrington signatories proliferated throughout social media and in the pages of The New York Times and Guardian.

Yet emails obtained pursuant to a FOIA request later revealed that these attacks were not the products of an independent objective news-gathering process of the type that publications like the Times and the Guardian still like to advertise. Rather, they were the fruits of an aggressive attempt to shape the news by the same government officials whose policies the epidemiologists had criticized. Emails between Fauci and Collins revealed that the two officials had worked together and with media outlets as various as Wired and The Nation to orchestrate a “takedown” of the declaration.

Nor did the targeting of the scientists stop with the bureaucrats they had implicitly criticized. Bhattacharya, Gupta, and Kulldorff soon learned that their declaration was being heavily censored on social media to prevent their scientific opinions from reaching the public. Kulldorff—then the most active of the three online—soon began to experience censorship of his own social media posts. For example, Twitter censored one of Kulldorff’s tweets asserting that: “Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should. COVID vaccines are important for older, higher-risk people and their caretakers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Not children.” Posts on Kulldorff’s Twitter and LinkedIn criticizing mask and vaccine mandates were labeled misleading or removed entirely. In March of 2021, YouTube took down a video depicting a roundtable discussion that Bhattacharya, Gupta, Kulldorff, and Dr. Scott Atlas had with Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, in which the participants critiqued mask and vaccine mandates.

Because of this censorship, Bhattacharya and Kulldorff are now plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden, a case brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, as well as the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), which is representing them and two other individuals, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Jill Hines. The plaintiffs allege that the Biden administration and a number of federal agencies coerced social media platforms into censoring them and others for criticizing the government’s COVID policies. In doing so, the Biden administration and relevant agencies had turned any ostensible private action by the social media companies into state action, in violation of the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court has long recognized and Justice Thomas explained in a concurring opinion just last year, “[t]he government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.”

Federal district courts have recently dismissed similar cases on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not prove state action. According to those judges, public admissions by then-White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki that the Biden administration was ordering social media companies to censor certain posts, as well as statements from Psaki, President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas threatening them with regulatory or other legal action if they declined to do so, still did not suffice to establish that the plaintiffs were censored on social media due to government action. Put another way, the judges declined to take the government at its word. But the Missouri judge reached a different conclusion, determining there was enough evidence in the record to infer that the government was involved in social media censorship, granting the plaintiffs’ request for discovery at the preliminary injunction stage.

The Missouri documents, along with some obtained through discovery in Berenson v. Twitter and a FOIA request by America First Legal, expose the extent of the administration’s appropriation of big tech to effect a vast and unprecedented regime of viewpoint-based censorship on the information that most Americans see, hear and otherwise consume. At least 11 federal agencies, and around 80 government officials, have been explicitly directing social media companies to take down posts and remove certain accounts that violate the government’s own preferences and guidelines for coverage on topics ranging from COVID restrictions, to the 2020 election, to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.

Correspondence publicized in Missouri further corroborates the theory that the companies dramatically increased censorship under duress from the government, strengthening the First Amendment claim. For example, shortly after President Biden asserted in July of 2021 that Facebook (Meta) was “killing people” by permitting “misinformation” about COVID vaccines to percolate, an executive from the company contacted the surgeon general to appease the White House. In a text message to Murthy, the executive acknowledged that the “FB team” was “feeling a little aggrieved” as “it’s not great to be accused of killing people,” while he sought to “de-escalate and work together collaboratively.” These are not the words of a person who is acting freely; to the contrary, they denote the mindset of someone who considers himself subordinate to, and subject to punishment by, a superior. Another text, exchanged between Jen Easterly, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and another CISA employee who now works at Microsoft, reads: “Platforms have got to get more comfortable with gov’t. It’s really interesting how hesitant they remain.” This is another incontrovertible piece of evidence that social media companies are censoring content under duress from the government, and not due to their directors’ own ideas of the corporate or common good.

Further, emails expressly establish that the social media companies intensified censorship efforts and removed particular individuals from their platforms in response to the government’s demands. Just a week after President Biden accused social media companies of “killing people,” the Meta executive mentioned above wrote the surgeon general an email telling him, “I wanted to make sure you saw the steps we took just this past week to adjust policies on what we are removing with respect to misinformation, as well as steps taken further to address the ‘disinfo dozen’: we removed 17 additional Pages, Groups, and Instagram accounts tied to [them].” About a month later, the same executive informed Murthy that Meta intended to expand its COVID policies to “further reduce the spread of potentially harmful content” and that the company was “increasing the strength of our demotions for COVID and vaccine-related content.”

Alex Berenson, a former New York Times reporter and a prominent critic of government-imposed COVID restrictions, has publicized internal Twitter communications he obtained through discovery in his own lawsuit showing that high-ranking members of the Biden administration, including White House Senior COVID-19 Advisor Andrew Slavitt, had pushed Twitter to permanently suspend him from the platform. In messages from April 2021, a Twitter employee noted that a meeting with the White House had gone relatively well, though the company’s representatives had fielded “one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform,” to which “mercifully we had answers” (emphasis added).

About two months later, days after Dr. Fauci publicly deemed Berenson a danger, and immediately following the president’s statement that social media companies were “killing people,” and despite assurances from high-ups at the company that his account was in no danger, Twitter permanently suspended Berenson’s account. If this does not qualify as government censorship of an individual based on official disapproval of his viewpoints, it would be difficult to say what might. Berenson was reinstated on Twitter in July 2022 as part of the settlement in his lawsuit.

In 1963, the Supreme Court, deciding Bantam Books v. Sullivan, held that “public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against” booksellers who carried materials containing obscenity could constitute a First Amendment violation. The same reasoning should apply to the Biden administration campaign to pressure tech companies into enforcing its preferred viewpoints.

The question of how the Biden administration has succeeded in jawboning big tech into observing its strictures is not particularly difficult to answer. Tech companies, many of which hold monopoly positions in their markets, have long feared and resisted government regulation. Unquestionably—and as explicitly revealed by the text message exchanged between Murthy and the Twitter executive—the prospect of being held liable for COVID deaths is an alarming one. Just like the booksellers in Bantam, social media platforms undoubtedly “do not lightly disregard” such possible consequences, as Twitter’s use of the term “mercifully” indicates.

It remains to be seen whether Bhattacharya and Kulldorff will be able to show that Fauci and Collins explicitly ordered tech companies to censor them and their Great Barrington Declaration. More discovery lies ahead, from top White House officials including Dr. Fauci, that may yield evidence of even more direct involvement by the government in preventing Americans from hearing their views. But Bhattacharya, Kulldorff, and countless social media users have had their First Amendment rights violated nonetheless.

The government’s involvement in censorship of specific perspectives, and direct role in escalating such censorship, has what is known in First Amendment law as a chilling effect: Fearing the repercussions of articulating certain views, people self-censor by avoiding controversial topics. Countless Americans, including the Missouri plaintiffs, have attested that they do exactly that for fear of losing influential and sometimes lucrative social media accounts, which can contain and convey significant social and intellectual capital.

Moreover, the Supreme Court recognizes that a corollary of the First Amendment right to speak is the right to receive information because “the right to receive ideas follows ineluctably from the sender’s First Amendment right to send them.” All Americans have been deprived—by the United States government—of their First Amendment rights to hear the views of Alex Berenson, as well as Drs. Bhattacharya and Kulldorff, and myriad additional people, like the reporters who broke the Hunter Biden laptop story for the New York Post and found themselves denounced as agents of Russian disinformation, who have been censored by social media platforms at the urging of the U.S. government. That deprivation strangled public debate on multiple issues of undeniably public importance. It allowed Fauci, Collins, and various other government actors and agencies, to mislead the public into believing there was ever a scientific consensus on lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates. It also arguably influenced the 2020 election.

The administration has achieved public acquiescence to its censorship activities by convincing many Americans that the dissemination of “misinformation” and “disinformation” on social media presents a grave threat to public safety and even national security. Over half a century ago, in his notorious concurrence in New York Times v. United States (in which the Nixon administration sought to prevent the newspaper from printing the Pentagon Papers) Justice Hugo Black rejected the view that the government may invoke such concepts to override the First Amendment: “[t]he word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment,” he wrote. Justice Black cited a 1937 opinion by Justice Charles Hughes explaining that this approach was woefully misguided: “The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press, and free assembly … that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government.”

The Founders of our country understood that line-drawing becomes virtually impossible once censorship begins and that the personal views and biases of those doing the censoring will inevitably come into play. Moreover, they recognized that sunlight is the best disinfectant: The cure for bad speech is good speech. The cure for lies, truth. Silencing people does not mean problematic ideas disappear; it only drives their adherents into echo chambers. People who are booted off Twitter, for example, often turn to Gab and Gettr, where they are less likely to encounter challenges to patently false posts claiming, for example, that COVID vaccines are toxic.

Indeed, this case could not illustrate more clearly the First Amendment’s chief purpose, and why the framers of the Constitution did not create an exception for “misinformation.” Government actors are just as prone to bias, hubris, and error as the rest of us. Drs. Fauci and Collins, enamored of newfound fame and basking in self-righteousness, took it upon themselves to suppress debate about the most important subject of the day. Had Americans learned of the Great Barrington Declaration and been given the opportunity to contemplate its ideas, and had scientists like Bhattacharya, Gupta, and Kulldorff been permitted to speak freely, the history of the pandemic era may have unfolded with far less tragedy—and with far less damage to the institutions that are supposed to protect public health.