Today the Supreme Court announced that it is granting “certiorari”, meaning that it will hear the case, to the litigants in Missouri v. Biden.
However, it also stopped the injunction against the government continuing to censor American citizens. Meaning that, the government will be able to turn the censorship regime back on while the court hears the case.
The Missouri v. Biden case involves the question of whether the Biden regime can use federal government resources to overtly censor American citizens, a practice aggressively begun under the COVID lockdowns. The case has revealed a wide array of government agencies and officials engaged in telling social media companies exactly what to censor, whom to ban, and what speech is permissible.
Legal experts describe the Missouri v. Biden as the most important case for free speech in at least a decade.
The Gateway Pundit Founder and Publisher Jim Hoft is the lead Plaintiff in the case.
In several notable instances turned over in discovery, the government was even caught referring a case of censorship originating from the Ukrainian government where an American citizen was too critical of the Ukraine war. The American government was commanding social media companies to censor American citizens on behalf of Ukraine.
The case was filed by the Attorney Generals of Missouri and Louisiana, filing in the federal Western District of Louisiana. The trial court judge granted an injunction limiting the ability of the federal government to continue engaging in acts of censorship. The 5th Circuit originally stopped that injunction, but upon a three-judge panel’s review ultimately modified that injunction to stop a wider group of agencies from engaging in censorship.
The government has aggressively appealed the case demanding that its right to censor American speech online not be challenged, stopped, or slowed.
Notably most media outlets have chronically misreported this story, obliquely referring to the case involving “communications” between the government and social media companies. They don’t disclose that those ‘communications’ were specific demands for censorship and deplatforming against specific speakers for the content of what they were saying.
“We’re extremely pleased and grateful that the Supreme Court has granted certiorari to decide the issue of the Preliminary Injunction stopping censorship, on the merits. That said, we completely agree with Judges Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, that staying the Preliminary Injunction during the pendency of the SCOTUS appeal is simply wrong. As Justice Alito observed, Judge Doughty’s Preliminary Injunction merely forces the United States Government to do the same thing the First Amendment does: don’t censor speech. As Justice Alito observed, the government stands to lose nothing by being forced to follow the Constitution,” said Gateway Pundit Attorney John Burns.
“On the other hand, now that the Preliminary Injunction is stayed, the despicable Biden Administration will continue its ruthless, fascist censorship campaign against millions of American citizens. There is zero legitimate interest in censoring the public, ever. However, we’re confident that the Supreme Court will continue nearly 250 years of legal precedent defending the First Amendment and ultimately re-impose the Preliminary Injunction. The Supreme Court cannot countenance the largest campaign of illegal censorship in American history.”
#BREAKING: Supreme Court *freezes* Louisiana district court ruling that would’ve barred a wide range of contacts between executive branch officials and social media companies.
Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch publicly dissent in separate opinion. pic.twitter.com/YL40IfzwSg
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) October 20, 2023
The Supreme Court requires four justices to vote to hear a case. The decision to terminate the injunction was likely a majority vote of the Justices on the court, where Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch publicly dissented in separate opinion.
In a dissent from this decision to stay the injunction, the trio of conservative Justices said,
“At this time in the history of our country, what the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news.”
You can read the decision here.