Judge Denies Dismissal of Most Social Media Censorship Claims vs. Biden
U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty for Louisiana's Western District in Monroe largely denied a motion Monday to dismiss a censorship complaint from the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana seeking an injunction against President Joe Biden, several federal officials and companies.
The ruling dismisses claims for injunctive relief against Biden himself as outside the court’s jurisdiction but denied the rest of the claims for dismissal. The complaint alleges Biden, social media companies and many others engaged in unconstitutional censorship by targeting of COVID-19 disinformation and using threats linked to Communications Decency Act Section 230. Section 230 has “become a tool for coercion used to encourage significant joint action between federal agencies and social-media companies,” said Doughty.
The 69 defendants -- including former Biden press secretary Jen Psaki, the FBI, former White House Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci and others -- sought to have the case dismissed based on arguments the plaintiffs lacked standing, the injunction request wouldn’t grant relief, and many of the defendants were protected by sovereign immunity. Doughty ruled the plaintiffs had shown injuries sufficient to grant standing due to censored social media posts. “Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged extensive federal censorship limiting the free flow of information on social-media platforms used by ‘millions of Missourians and Louisianians,’” said the opinion.
Arguments that sovereign immunity protects the officials ignore “the basic principle that parties may seek to enjoin federal officials from violating the Constitution,” said the opinion. The complaint “alleges more than the exercise of permissible government speech. It alleges extensive and highly effective efforts by government officials to ‘silence or muffle’ the expression of disfavored viewpoints,” the opinion said. Because the complaint alleges state action, the plaintiffs “plausibly state a claim for violation of the First Amendment via government-induced censorship,” said Doughty. “Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged prior restraints and viewpoint discrimination, which are clear violations of the First Amendment.”
The injuries to the plaintiffs “could be redressed without declaring Section 230 unconstitutional,” wrote Doughty, rejecting arguments that an injunction couldn’t fix past censorship. The government officials could be enjoined from using Section 230 immunity as “a metaphorical carrot-and-stick combined with the alleged back-room meetings, hands-on approach to online censorship,” the opinion said.
Injunctive relief against Biden himself “is not proper” because of past precedents about separation of powers, said Doughty. The plaintiffs already seek relief against several subordinate federal officials, who are “more properly subject” to the court’s jurisdiction, he said. “The case law suggests that where relief against other federal officials would redress the Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, the claims against the President should not proceed and are not necessary.” That claim was dismissed with prejudice, but Doughty said claims for declaratory relief against Biden were dismissed without prejudice, thus allowing them to be refiled in the future.