Public Advocate Win: Judge Forces Feds To Reveal More Evidence Of Censorship
"Public Advocate filed an important amicus brief through our long time legal counsel William Olson in Missouri V. Biden and the Appeals court upheld our request to support an injunction against the Biden Administration from ordering social media platforms to censor conservatives, says Eugene Delgaudio, president of Public Advocate.
Delgaudio said : "The Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Missouri v. Biden (attached). The Court upheld but narrowed the key provisions of the District Court injunction against the most oppressive government defendants -- the White House, CDC and FBI, while letting off the hook NIAID, CISA, and the State Department because of insufficient evidence. The scope of the injunction was narrowed to banning communications which were "threatening, pressuring, or coercing" social media companies.
The court relied to some degree on the Second Circuit decision in NRA v Vullo, which we addressed in an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to grant cert, as well as the Ninth Circuit's decision in O'Handley v. Weber,where we also supported SCOTUS review.
The decision panel including: Judges Clement and Elrod who were appointed by George W Bush and Judge Willett who was appointed by Donald J. Trump, " said Delgaudio.
"We note that this case continues to yield critical evidence of government censorship that we hope the new Trump Administration and the new Congress investigate and punish those who are found to have exceeded their Constitutional authority, which is being established day by day in this appeal, "
said Delgaudio.
More internal government communications will soon be revealed in a high-profile censorship case that already hit the U.S. Supreme Court, thanks to a Friday court ruling in Missouri v. Biden. The historic free speech case uncovered that federal officials, all the way up to President Joe Biden, pressured social media companies to remove specific posts and discussion terms, systemically slanting society in favor of Democrats by controlling public discussions.
After the Supreme Court ruled in June that the plaintiffs didn't meet the higher legal standard for a preliminary injunction against government officials, as the case moved forward, the case went back to a Louisiana district court, where it originated. The judge in that case, Terry Doughty, on Friday allowed the plaintiffs to obtain more public records, which they say will help establish that federal officials specifically targeted their speech on social media monopolies such as Facebook, Google, and X.
"Because we find that Plaintiffs have demonstrated the necessity of jurisdictional discovery, and because their proposed discovery does not appear to be a jurisdictional fishing expedition-Plaintiffs shall have the opportunity to conduct such discovery," Doughty wrote in his Nov. 8 ruling.
The plaintiffs include the states of Missouri and Louisiana; prominent doctors Jayanta Bhattacharya, Aaron Kheriaty, and Martin Kulldorff; and citizens Jill Hines and Jim Hoft. They are suing numerous federal agencies and officials, including Biden, national security bureaucracies such as the Department of Homeland Security and FBI, and health bureaucracies such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.