Personal Freedoms

published : 2023-10-28

Supreme Court to Review Biden Administration's Communication Restrictions with Big Tech

AG hopeful Supreme Court will block 'worst First Amendment' breaches in history

A photo of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., taken with a Canon EOS 5D Mark IV.

The Supreme Court has agreed to review a court-ordered ban on certain communications between the Biden administration and Big Tech platforms after lower courts said government officials coordinated with the companies to censor speech.

State attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana filed a lawsuit accusing high-ranking government officials of collaborating with social media giants under the pretext of combating misinformation, resulting in the censorship of topics such as Hunter Biden's laptop, COVID-19 origins, and the effectiveness of face masks.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey believes the Supreme Court's review signifies the recognition of the most severe First Amendment violations in the nation's history.

A picture of Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey addressing the media, taken with a Nikon D850.

Bailey aims for a permanent separation between tech and state to protect free speech rights, stating that their investigation has only scratched the surface of uncovering what he calls a 'vast censorship enterprise.'

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously imposed a temporary injunction on the Biden administration, finding it likely violated the Free Speech Clause by coercing social media platforms to censor content.

A nationwide preliminary injunction is sought to create a wall of separation between tech and state, with the Supreme Court agreeing to hear arguments on whether the current injunction should be maintained.

An image showing social media logos of popular platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, taken with a Sony Alpha a7 III.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch believe the injunction should have remained in place, emphasizing the critical importance of the case.

Bailey counters the argument that an injunction would have a 'chilling effect' by asserting that there is a distinction between federal officials overseeing social media posts and President Biden conveying his message from the podium.

The Supreme Court is expected to establish a briefing schedule and oral argument date for the case of Missouri v. Biden in the near future.