Supreme Court Extends Stay on Fifth Circuit Injunction Stopping Biden Admin From Coercing Big Tech to Censor Posts
The pause is only until September 27. Maybe all of the justices are writing opinions on it.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito extended a temporary pause on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal’s injunction restricting the Biden administration from coercing social media platforms.
Alito extended the stay until September 27.
Missouri and Louisiana filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration, accusing them of colluding with Big Tech to silence conservative voices.
The plaintiffs accused the Biden administration of targeting supposed COVID-19 misinformation.
2. A private entity violates the First Amendment “if the government coerces or induces it to take action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as censor expression of a lawful viewpoint.” Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ., 141 S. Ct. 1220, 1226 (2021) (Thomas, J., concurring). “The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.” Id.
To get to the Supreme Court, you go through a district court and a circuit court.
On July 4th, the United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana – Monroe Division ruled that the plaintiffs would likely succeed on the merits that the Biden administration used its power to silence its opposition on social media platforms.
On September 8, the Fifth Circuit upheld most of the district court’s findings. The three-judge panel also issued a modified injunction:
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 DOJ threw a hissy fit.
On September 14, officials asked SCOTUS for a stay against the injunction.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar claimed:
If allowed to take effect, the injunction would impose grave and irreparable harms on the government and the public. In contrast, a continued stay pending further proceedings in this Court would impose no cognizable harm on respondents. The Court should therefore stay the injunction in full pending the filing and disposition of the government’s forthcoming petition for a writ of certiorari. At a minimum, the Court should stay the injunction insofar as it applies beyond any content posted by the individual respondents themselves.
Alito issued the stay on Friday afternoon.
September 27 is only five days away. That is not a long pause.
In-fighting at SCOTUS about it? Are many of the justices writing an opinion? As we all know, opinions are never short. It seems they have to be at least 30 pages!
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The courts have very little common sense
It’s a “I hesitate to say that I don’t disagree with them” moment.
Roberts will say censorship is really a tax, so it’s constitutional!
You won the internet today.
So it’s an injunction against an injunction.
Is it possible to have an injunction against an injunction against an injunction?
In mathematics, we would write injunction^n, where n is a positive integer. I suppose there are only three levels of federal appellate courts, so n<=3.
I think it’s factorial. injunction!
Am gonna read Murthy’s response.
No, no it’s not. An injunction is a court order requiring a party to do something or refrain from doing something. A stay is not that thing.
“2. A private entity violates the First Amendment “if the government coerces or induces it to take action the government itself would not be permitted to do,”
I really don’t like this wording. If the government COERCES me to take an unconstitutional action, I’m not violating the First Amendment, they are,
In that case, both entities are.
Don’t forget people that the real threat to Democracy is Donald Trump 🙄😂😂
I don’t mind the short stay as long as they are using the time to get their answers done well….since it’s Alito after all.
What I’m having trouble understanding is the previous lack of coverage of DOJ’s appeal to the Supremes.
In particular, the absence of posts from Prof Jacobson on this subject.
Biden v. Missouri isn’t for all the marbles, but either a complete loss or a further enfeebled injunction than the 5th Circuit’s present work product will make it extremely difficult to stave off the imposition of permanent one-party rule over the former United States.
Perhaps the Professor should let readers know what he hopes will happen or what he fears will happen with this case.
I’m encouraged that the Courts acted as quickly as they did.
For example, how long has DACA been flopping around?