La. Judge Grants RFK Jr.'s Injunction to Bar Biden Officials From Suppressing Speech
U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty for Western Louisiana in Monroe granted Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his co-plaintiffs, Children’s Health Defense and Connie Sampognaro, their motion for a preliminary injunction, barring officials from the White House and four federal agencies from coercing social media platforms to moderate their content, said his signed memorandum ruling Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-00381).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The judge stayed the injunction but ordered that it lift automatically on the 11th day after the U.S. Supreme Court decides the corollary case in Murthy v. Missouri (docket 23-411). Kennedy's representatives and the DOJ didn’t immediately comment.
Days after SCOTUS denied the Kennedy plaintiffs’ motion to intervene in Murthy v. Missouri (see 2312110052), Doughty, a President Donald Trump appointee, said he was now inclined to rule on their motion for a preliminary injunction (see 2312150026). Doughty, who issued the July 4 injunction against administration officials that’s now before SCOTUS in Murthy v. Missouri, previously stayed the Kennedy plaintiffs’ injunction motion until after SCOTUS resolves Murthy v. Missouri.
Doughty finds that the Kennedy plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that officials from the White House, the surgeon general’s office, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency “exercised coercive power” to suppress the plaintiffs’ speech, said his ruling Wednesday. The government “may not induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish,” it said.
When the government “has so involved itself” in a private party’s conduct, it can’t claim the conduct “occurred as a result of private choice, even if the private party would have acted independently,” said Doughty’s ruling. Oral or written statements made by public officials could give rise to a valid First Amendment claim, it said. That’s where the comments of a governmental official “can reasonably be interpreted as intimating that some form of punishment or adverse regulatory action will follow the failure to accede to the official’s request,” it said.
As Doughty found in issuing the July 4 injunction in Missouri v. Biden, the forerunner case to Murthy v. Missouri now before SCOTUS, officials from the White House and the four federal agencies “likely violated” the First Amendment's free speech clause, said Wednesday’s ruling. He further finds that officials from the CDC, CISA and FBI “significantly encouraged social-media platforms to suppress protected free speech,” it said.
On the question of irreparable harm, Doughty finds that the Kennedy plaintiffs have demonstrated a likely injury from government censorship and that the injury is “imminent,” said Wednesday’s ruling. The question is whether the Kennedy plaintiffs have alleged a substantial risk that a harm may occur, which is likely, it said.
The alleged past actions of government officials “show a substantial risk of harm that is likely,” said the ruling. Those officials “apparently continue to have meetings with social-media companies and other contacts,” it said.
Though the COVID-19 pandemic is no longer an emergency, it’s likely that in the event of any other “real or perceived emergency event,” the officials “likely would once again use their power over social-media companies to suppress alternative views,” said the ruling. It’s certainly likely that the officials “could use their power over millions of people to suppress alternative views or moderate content they do not agree with in the upcoming 2024 national election,” it said.
The government maintains that its interest in being able to report misinformation and warn social-media companies of foreign actors’ misinformation campaigns outweighs the Kennedy plaintiffs’ interest in the right of free speech, said Wednesday’s ruling. But Doughty disagrees, “and finds the balance of equities and the public interest strongly favors the issuance of a preliminary injunction,” it said.
The public interest is served “by maintaining the constitutional structure and the First Amendment free speech rights” of the Kennedy plaintiffs, said Wednesday’s ruling. “The right of free speech is a fundamental constitutional right that is vital to the freedom of our nation,” it said. The Kennedy plaintiffs have produced evidence of a “massive effort” by federal officials “to suppress speech based on its content,” it said. The government’s alleged suppression “has likely resulted in millions of free speech violations,” it said.