Originally published July 5, 2023 7:12 am PDT

In a legal blow to the Biden administration, U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty issued a preliminary injunction on Tuesday, significantly restricting its interactions with social media platforms over matters of “protected speech.”

The ruling topples “years of efforts to enhance coordination between the government and social media companies,” according to The Washington Post.

The injunction “is strikingly broad and clearly intended to chill any kind of contact between government actors and social media platforms,” said Stanford Law School assistant professor Evelyn Douek.

The ongoing case, spearheaded by former Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, revolves around allegations that federal government agencies conspired with social media giants—including Google, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter—to undermine free speech.

Schmitt and Landry in their filings argued the Biden admin’s actions amount to “the most egregious violations of the First Amendment in the history of the United States of America.”

The temporary injunction, granted by Judge Doughty—a Trump appointee—effectively prevents a variety of federal agencies from engaging with social media companies “for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”

Doughty characterized the attorneys general case as depicting “an almost dystopian scenario” whereby “the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’”

Explaining his use of the term “Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth,’” Doughty said it “refers to the concept presented in George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984.

“In the novel, the Ministry of Truth is a governmental institution responsible for altering historical records and disseminating propaganda to manipulate and control public perception,” Doughty writes.

Missouri and Louisianna “are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition,” the judge added.

It is “likely” provable that the Biden administration “used its power to silence” the following, according to Doughty:

• [o]pposition to COVID-19 vaccines
• opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns
• opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19
• opposition to the validity of the 2020 election
• opposition to President Biden’s policies
• statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true
• opposition to policies of the government officials in power

“All were suppressed,” the judge stated, emphasizing the biased political nature of the Biden admin’s censorship practices, targeting right-wing voices.

“It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature,” he continued. “This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country.”

Missouri and Louisiana “have presented substantial evidence in support of their claims that they were the victims of a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign. This court finds that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment free speech claim against the Defendants.”

The affected agencies include the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Notwithstanding the ruling, these agencies retain the authority to inform social media companies about potential national security threats, crimes, or foreign attempts to meddle in elections.

This ruling serves as a stern rebuttal to the Biden administration’s approach to controlling the spread of so-called “misinformation” and content it deems as controversial on digital platforms, severely limiting its ability to communicate concerns about such content to social media firms.

Despite government attorneys arguing that federal officials do not possess the authority to demand the removal of content from social media platforms, Judge Doughty noted in his ruling that the plaintiffs “have produced evidence of a massive effort by defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.”

U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt, a key figure in the litigation, celebrated the injunction on Twitter, declaring it a “big win for the First Amendment on this Independence Day.”

Read the full injunction below: