The U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary stay on a lower court ruling last Thursday that significantly constricted the Biden administration’s ability to persuade social media platforms to remove content it classifies as misleading, thus briefly halting a preliminary injunction implemented on the administration by a federal court in Louisiana in July. The court’s orders can be seen here.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar challenged the standing of the Attorneys General of Missouri and Louisiana in the administration’s stay application, who had brought a lawsuit against the administration. They alleged that the administration had breached the First Amendment’s free speech protections by continuously “threatening and cajoling” social media platforms over the years to “suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content”. The administration’s stay application can be found here.
Prelogar argued that the initial injunction infringes on the First Amendment protections as it relates to the administration’s own rights. According to the administration’s application, the U.S. government has the right to inform the public and to advocate and defend its policies. This includes using the President’s influence to persuade the American public, and companies, to act as the President sees fit to advance public interest.
Although the administration intends to formally appeal this decision to the Supreme Court in October 2023, the temporary stay will only last till the 22nd of September. The administration has the right to file an extension on the stay, possibly providing more time to officially appeal the injunction to the Supreme Court.
Prior to the Supreme Court stay, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit partially upheld the lower court’s ruling, adopting their reasoning that social media firms’ decisions to censor content were often made due to a possible fear of legal or regulatory implications that might arise from not complying with the government’s directives. However, the Fifth Circuit considerably limited the scope of the lower court’s original injunction, dismissing 9 out of the 10 prohibitions due to them being overbroad and duplicative.
Full details on this story can be found here.