Biden DOJ seeks Supreme Court’s intervention on social media ruling.
The Department of Justice Requests Supreme Court Stay on Injunction Limiting Government’s Communications with Social Media Platforms
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has made a bold move by requesting the U.S. Supreme Court to stay an appeals court injunction that restricted the federal government’s ability to communicate with social media firms. This comes after a lower court found that federal officials had potentially violated the First Amendment’s free speech protections by pressuring social media platforms to censor certain posts, including those related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
“This application concerns an unprecedented injunction installing the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana as the superintendent of the Executive Branch’s communications with and about social-media platforms — including senior White House officials’ speech addressing some of the most salient public issues of the day,” U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in a filing.
Related Stories
- Alabama Petitions Supreme Court to Halt Lower Court Ruling on GOP-Drawn Voting Map – 9/11/2023
- Infowars Host Wants to Appeal to US Supreme Court Over Jan. 6 Case – 9/13/2023
Last week, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially upheld a lower court ruling that accused U.S. officials of pressuring social media platforms to suppress posts about the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 election. The injunction, which applied to the White House, the surgeon general’s office, the CDC, and the FBI, prohibited them from coercing or significantly encouraging companies to remove content. However, other agencies like the NIAID, CISA, and State Department were not subject to this ruling.
“Under the modified injunction, the enjoined Defendants cannot coerce or significantly encourage a platform’s content-moderation decisions. Such conduct includes threats of adverse consequences—even if those threats are not verbalized and never materialize—so long as a reasonable person would construe a government’s message as alluding to some form of punishment,” a 5th Circuit panel of judges wrote.
The DOJ argues that the appeals court’s decision places unprecedented limits on the government’s ability to address matters of concern, national security, and public information dissemination. The Biden administration maintains that it requested social media companies to remove harmful misinformation but denies forcing them to do so.
“If allowed to take effect, the injunction would impose grave and irreparable harms on the government and the public,” Ms. Prelogar wrote for the DOJ.
The DOJ further contends that the lower court’s ruling restricts the President’s aides from using their platform to address public concerns, hampers the FBI’s ability to address national security threats, and limits the CDC’s ability to provide health information upon platforms’ requests.
For instance, the DOJ lawyers highlight that the FBI regularly shares information with platforms regarding accounts potentially used by foreign actors or terrorist organizations. The 5th Circuit acknowledged that the lower court ruling found officials likely coerced or encouraged social media platforms to moderate content, potentially violating the First Amendment. However, it also deemed the injunction to be vague and broader than necessary.
Earlier this week, the DOJ filed a motion with the 5th Circuit Court to seek clarity on its ruling, which has been put on hold until September 18 to allow the Biden administration to submit papers to the Supreme Court. This request suggests that the agency is likely to appeal to the Supreme Court, setting the stage for a significant legal battle over online speech and social media.
Republicans and critics of the government’s COVID-19 response have been vocal about their concerns regarding the Biden administration’s handling of online content, accusing it of silencing dissenting viewpoints. The lawsuit filed by the attorneys general also alleges that social media outlets blocked content related to the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 election.
Reuters contributed to this report.
What is the title of the lawyer who represents the federal government before the Supreme Court?
The solicitor general is the lawyer who represents the federal government before the Supreme Court: He or she decides which cases (in which the United States is a party) should be appealed from the lower courts and personally approves each one presented (Figure 13.11). L security, and public health on social media platforms. They claim that the injunction infringes on the government’s constitutional free speech rights and impairs its ability to effectively communicate with the public. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar emphasized the significance of senior White House officials’ speech in addressing important public issues.
The DOJ’s request for a stay on the injunction marks a significant development in the ongoing legal battle between the federal government and social media platforms over content censorship. The lower court’s ruling found that federal officials had exerted pressure on social media companies to censor certain posts related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 election. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals partially upheld this ruling, concluding that the government’s actions violated the First Amendment.
Under the modified injunction, federal agencies like the White House, the surgeon general’s office, the CDC, and the FBI were prohibited from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to remove content. However, other agencies like the NIAID, CISA, and State Department were not subject to these restrictions.
The DOJ’s argument centers around the unprecedented limits imposed by the appeals court’s decision. They claim that the government should have the ability to address matters of concern, national security, and public health on social media platforms without infringing on constitutional rights. Essentially, they argue that the injunction hampers the government’s ability to fulfill its crucial role in communicating with the public effectively.
The request for a stay on the injunction speaks to the broader debate surrounding the regulation of social media platforms. As these platforms have become increasingly influential in shaping public opinion and disseminating information, questions have arisen about the extent to which they should be subject to government oversight and regulation. Balancing the right to free speech with concerns about the spread of misinformation and harmful content has proven to be a complex challenge.
The outcome of the DOJ’s request to the Supreme Court will have far-reaching implications for the relationship between the government and social media platforms. It will help outline the boundaries within which the government can operate in regulating online content and interacting with social media companies.
Overall, the DOJ’s move to request a stay on the injunction demonstrates their commitment to ensuring the government’s ability to effectively communicate with the public on social media platforms. As the legal battle continues, the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the limits of government communication with these platforms and the balance between free speech rights and content regulation.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...