Judge Allows Most of States’ Online Speech Claims Against Biden to Go Forward
U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty for Western Louisiana in Monroe, in a 77-page decision Monday, mostly denied the government’s motion to dismiss the claims of the Republican attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri, plus a host of private plaintiffs, that the Biden administration colluded with Big Tech to suppress right-leaning content on social media.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Doughty denied the government’s motion to dismiss on grounds that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because all suffered an injury-in-fact. He also found that the plaintiffs’ claims aren’t barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. 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 court agrees with the government that injunctive relief against President Joe Biden “is not proper here,” said Doughty, granting the defendants motion to dismiss on that point. 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.”