On July 4, Monroe’s U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty issued the injunction.
On Monday, a federal judge rejected the Biden administration’s request to temporarily overturn a ruling prohibiting public officials from communicating with social media companies about false information.
To pursue an appeal, attorneys for the Biden administration had asked U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty in Monroe to halt his order, which was issued last Tuesday. That ruling resulted from a lawsuit brought by the Republican attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri, the owner of a conservative website, and four other people who opposed the COVID-19 regulations.
According to the lawsuit, the administration effectively censored free speech by pressuring businesses to remove false information while threatening them with legal action or other protection.
The lawsuit put the COVID-19 vaccines, legal issues involving President Biden’s son Hunter, and allegations of election fraud in the spotlight.
The Department of Health and Human Services, the FBI, as well as numerous other government organizations and administration officials, were forbidden by Doughty’s injunction from meeting with or contacting social media companies with the intention of “encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”
In his decision on Monday, Doughty stated that the defendants “do not identify any specific conduct that they claim is legal but is barred by the injunction.” While his order is being challenged in New Orleans before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, he refused to block it. The administration may also request a stay from the appeals court.
Biden administration attorneys argued that the government faced “irreparable harm” because Doughty’s July 4 order might prevent it from “working with social media companies on initiatives to prevent grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes.”
The court memo stated that a stay is in the public interest because “these immediate and ongoing harms to the Government outweigh any risk of injury to Plaintiffs” if one is granted.
In contrast, Doughty’s order charged that the Biden administration had adopted a position “comparable to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’.”
The Biden administration claimed the injunction would prevent it from speaking “on matters of public concern” and carrying out its primary law enforcement duties.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit have countered that Doughty’s injunction creates exceptions that permit officials to speak with social media companies about postings that involve criminal activity or public safety threats; threats to national security; election-related issues such as voter suppression attempts; threats to voting infrastructure; and unauthorized campaign contributions.
Additionally, it is stated in the injunction that officials may continue “exercising permissible public government speech promoting government policies or views on matters of public concern.”
