Judge Terry A. Doughty, a federal judge appointed by former President Donald Trump, referenced Vice President Kamala Harris in a decision tied to a prominent social media censorship case. The order included commentary echoing and twisting Harris’ campaign language, where he wrote that “we now consistently proceed burdened by what has been,” a pointed reversal of her well-known line, “unburdened by what has been.” Later, he discussed the possibility of “regime change” and suggested that public figure Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could soon lead a federal public health agency, calling such an outcome “relevant” and “wild.”
The case, which began under the name Missouri v. Biden and was later renamed Murthy v. Missouri, centers on a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri against the Biden administration. They argued that federal policies encouraging social media platforms to remove misinformation about COVID-19 amounted to a violation of the First Amendment. This case stems from actions by various federal agencies that reportedly urged social media companies to moderate or remove content deemed as misinformation. The plaintiffs contended that such actions effectively led to censorship and suppressed public discourse, creating a chilling effect on free speech rights.
In a lengthy opinion, Judge Doughty previously likened these actions to the operations of an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth,” expressing concern over the perceived overreach of federal influence on public discussion. His initial ruling included an injunction, which ordered officials from the federal government to stop contacting social media platforms in ways that could impact content moderation decisions around topics like COVID-19.
After Doughty’s ruling, the Biden administration promptly appealed, initially losing at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court found in favor of the plaintiffs, agreeing that agencies like the FBI, CDC, the White House, and the COVID-19 Response Team likely breached First Amendment protections by “coercing and significantly encouraging” social media companies to “censor disfavored” speech. Following this ruling, the Department of Justice brought the case to the Supreme Court, seeking a stay on the injunction and arguing that the district court’s decision represented an unprecedented level of judicial involvement in executive branch communications.
The Supreme Court, however, ultimately did not address the core arguments of the case. Instead, the majority opinion, led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, focused on the standing doctrine a legal principle that dictates that individuals seeking to sue the government must establish a direct connection between the alleged harm and government actions. Barrett argued that the plaintiffs lacked specific evidence linking their claims to particular acts of content moderation, concluding that a review of broad communications between federal officials and social media companies would extend beyond the court’s scope. This decision effectively dismissed the case on procedural grounds, instructing the lower court to conduct further proceedings without delving into the merits of the arguments themselves.
Back in Doughty’s court, the judge has signaled his continued support for the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims. In his order, he emphasized that while the Fifth Circuit had largely agreed with his original conclusions, the Supreme Court had remanded the case. He invited the parties to consider whether the plaintiffs might still establish standing through “jurisdictional discovery,” a procedural step allowing evidence collection specifically to demonstrate standing without exploring the underlying claims. This approach could enable the plaintiffs to establish a clearer link between their injuries and the government’s actions, addressing the Supreme Court’s concerns regarding standing.
Under Doughty’s latest order, the plaintiffs now have 14 days to present further arguments related to standing, with the defendants given the same amount of time to respond. While Judge Doughty acknowledged that a potential “regime change” could impact the issues at play in the case, he cautioned against taking action based on such speculation, underscoring that judicial decisions should not be influenced by anticipated changes in leadership.
As the case proceeds, the debate reflects a growing tension over government influence in digital spaces and its potential impact on free speech. The plaintiffs argue that federal encouragement to remove misinformation, particularly around sensitive topics like public health, crosses a constitutional line, while the government maintains that such measures are necessary for public welfare. The outcome could have significant implications for how future administrations interact with technology platforms and influence public conversations in the digital realm. This ongoing legal dispute continues to explore the boundaries between government action, public discourse, and the First Amendment in an increasingly interconnected world.
