Tag: scotus

Supreme Court Appears Wary of Blocking Biden Admin-Big Tech Censorship Collusion

During oral arguments in a major First Amendment case on Monday, the Supreme Court expressed reservations about restricting interactions between the Biden administration and social media platforms. This concern emerged during the Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden) case, which delves into the extent of governmental influence over online content.

Brian Fletcher, Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, presented oral arguments for the petitioners in the case, Biden’s Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy and several other current and former members of the Biden administration.

The respondents in the case, the States of Missouri and Louisiana, and several other individuals who were subject to social media censorship, allege that the federal government had pressured platforms to block or downgrade posts on various topics, including some related to Covid and the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Several lower courts agreed with the respondents, with a district judge describing the Biden administration’s Big Tech-censorship collusion as “Orwellian” and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finding that the Biden admin likely violated the First Amendment when pushing for social media censorship.

During the oral arguments today though, the justices displayed skepticism towards a broad prohibition on governmental communications with social media platforms. They raised concerns that such a ruling could unduly restrain the government’s ability to address pressing issues.

Fletcher defended the Biden admin’s actions and framed them as the government exercising its right to “speak for itself by informing, persuading, or criticizing private speakers.” He argued that the government is entitled to communicate with social media companies to influence their content moderation decisions, as long as these interactions do not veer into coercion. According to Fletcher, the litmus test for legality should be the presence or absence of threats from the government, asserting that using the bully pulpit for exhortations is a right protected under the First Amendment.

Fletcher also tried to argue for the significant power and autonomy of social media companies, noting their capability to resist governmental pressures.

The solicitor general of Louisiana, Benjamin Aguiñaga, representing one of the Republican-led states behind the lawsuit, argued that the government’s actions amounted to coercion, effectively leading to censorship by social media platforms. He highlighted a significant shift in the focus of government-led content moderation. Initially aimed at tackling foreign interference and misinformation, these efforts increasingly targeted speech by American citizens, particularly around the contentious topics of the 2020 election and the pandemic.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga’s viewpoint. “And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country. And you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So, can you help me? Because I’m really worried about that.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court Rules Public Officials May Block Their Constituents on Social Media

Public officials may block people on social media in certain situations, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on March 15.

At the same time, the court held that public officials who post about topics pertaining to their work on their personal social media accounts are acting on behalf of the government. But such officials can be found liable for violating the First Amendment only when they have been properly authorized by the government to communicate on its behalf.

The case is important because nowadays public officials routinely reach out to voters through social media on the same pages where they discuss personal matters unrelated to government business.

“When a government official posts about job-related topics on social media, it can be difficult to tell whether the speech is official or private,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the nation’s highest court.

The case is separate from but brings to mind a lawsuit that several individuals previously filed against former President Donald Trump after he blocked them from accessing his social media account on Twitter, which was later renamed X. The Supreme Court dismissed that case, Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute, in April 2021 as moot because President Trump had already left office.

At the time of the ruling, the then-Twitter had banned President Trump. When Elon Musk took over the company he reversed that policy.

Keep reading

23 States and District of Columbia File Amicus Briefs in Favor of Joe Biden and Government Censorship and Regulation of Speech in America – via the MO v. Biden Case

Twenty-three Democrat run states and the District of Columbia, the home of our nation’s capital, filed amicus briefs in support of government censorship and banning of free speech in the United States.

These 23 states and the District of Columbia filed amicus briefs in support of the Biden administration in the SCOTUS case is Murthy, et al v. Missouri, et al, 23-411 (Missouri v. Biden) case.

The states essentially argue that they have an interest in collaborating with tech companies to “encourage” the public to behave themselves and “discourage” the public from believing alleged “disinformation” or engaging in online predatory behavior. The clear message is that they believe that the government has the right to shut down and censor speech.

The list of un-American states that support government censorship include:

New York
Colorado
Arizona
California
Connecticut
Vermont,
Washington,
Washington, D.C.
Wisconsin
New Jersey
New Mexico,
Oregon
Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island,
Delaware,
Hawaii,
Illinois,
Maine,
Maryland,
Massachusetts,
Michigan,
Minnesota,
Nevada

HOWEVER, a number of courageous states filed an Amicus Curiae brief in SUPPORT of Gateway Pundit and the Free Speech Respondents. These (16) heroic states include:

Montana,
Alabama,
Alaska,
Florida,
Georgia,
Iowa,
Idaho,
Tennessee,
Kansas,
Nebraska,
Ohio,
South Carolina,
South Dakota,
Utah,
Virginia,
West Virginia,
and the Arizona Legislature

The “most important free speech case in a generation” Missouri v. Biden (Murthy v. Missouri), is set to be heard by the Supreme Court on Monday, March 18th.

Keep reading

Supreme Court rules Trump cannot be kicked off ballot

The Supreme Court on Monday handed a sweeping win to former President Donald Trump by ruling states cannot kick him off the ballot over his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — bringing a swift end to a case with huge implications for the 2024 election.

The court in an unsigned ruling with no dissents reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which determined that Trump could not serve again as president under section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

The court said the Colorado Supreme Court had wrongly assumed that states can determine whether a presidential candidate is ineligible under a provision of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

The ruling makes it clear that Congress, not states, has to set rules on how the 14th Amendment provision can be enforced. As such the decision applies to all states, not just Colorado.

Keep reading

Ailing Justice Sonia Sotomayor Traveled with Medic, Needed “Medical Supplies” and “Medical Gear”

Trump was right. Again.

Far-left Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is in really bad shape. The 69-year-old justice is overweight and suffers from type 1 diabetes.

According to newly released US Marshals Service records, Sonia Sotomayor, the oldest left-leaning justice on the bench, traveled with a medic and needed “medical supplies,” and “medical gear.”

“Justice Sotomayor’s health concerns are also apparent throughout the documents. On a Feb. 2018 trip to south Florida with no public events, Sotomayor appears to have a medic from Grand Junction, Colo. accompanying her, and another is with her during an Oct. 2018 swing through Chicago and Nashville for book events. Four of Sotomayor’s 2021 trips mention “medical gear” or “medical supplies.” What’s more, some version of the phrase, “PPE will be utilized for the duration of this mission,” appears to have been written on a dozen of her 2021 USMS travel reports, including one where deputies are directed: “Wear masks regardless of vaccination status,” p. 281.” the records stated.

“Per the documents she appears to have done what many Americans who could afford to did during the pandemic: spend months in a warm place working remotely, as the reports indicate she spent the last six weeks of 2020 and first six weeks of 2021 in south Florida, including for the Court’s Dec. 2020 and Jan. 2021 sittings.” the records said.

Joe Biden has only appointed one Supreme Court Justice since he was installed in January 2021.

Biden picked far-left Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace Justice Stephen Breyer.

Court watchers have long speculated Sotomayor would retire early since she suffers from a host of health problems.

Keep reading

US Supreme Court Defends Free Speech on Palestine

Free-speech defenders welcomed the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to take up a lawsuit that outlandishly claimed a civil society group provided “material support” for terrorism by advocating for Palestinian human rights.

The Supreme Court’s punting of Jewish National Fund v. U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR)— which comes over three months into Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip — marks the third consecutive time a federal court has dismissed the case, which USCPR said casts “collective activism and expression of solidarity as unlawful.”

In the case’s first dismissal in March 2021, a federal judge said that the plaintiffs’ argument was “to say the least, not persuasive.”  

USCPR Executive Director Ahmad Abuznaid hailed Monday’s move by the nation’s highest court, reiterating the group stands for “justice for all and an end to funding genocide.”

“There’s no lawsuit in the world that can stop us from pushing our demands for human rights,” he said. “We will remain focused on opposing Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people and pursuing justice and freedom for the Palestinian people.”

According to USCPR: 

“At issue were USCPR’s fiscal sponsorship of the Boycott National Committee and expressions of support for the rights and demands of Palestinians participating in the Great Return March [2108-19], when Palestinians protested to demand respect for their right to return to the villages from which Israeli settlers expelled them in 1948.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court Declines To Hear X’s Challenge to FBI Surveillance Gag Orders

The social network formerly known as Twitter has been undergoing more than just “superficial” branding transformations as of late, going from a reliable ally of state-driven censorship, to a platform that became the first major one to try to shed light on the mechanisms and practices of deep censorship.

The Twitter Files disclose more than just a private company exercising the right to be wrong in suppressing users’ free speech: they also implicated the US federal government with damning proof of serious transgressions, such as (explicitly unconstitutional) state collusion in censorship.

However, the US Supreme Court has now refused to consider X’s request to be able to publish some relevant numbers.

The original filing dates all the way back to 2014, in the wake of the revelations by whistleblower Edward Snowden, that sent shock waves both among citizens and politicians.

But those behind the company/platform, now called X, seem well-aware that this story by no means ended with some government concessions (regarding disclosure) made after the Snowden revelations, or with the Twitter Files.

And so, possibly as a defense tactic going forward, X tried to be granted the right to reveal the number of times federal law enforcement “gets in touch” to get information, framed as pertaining to national security.

The Supreme Court decision came after X appealed when a lower instance court said that the FBI had every right to constrain X in sharing the information about the “national security investigations requests” number with the public.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Wipes Out Three Rulings Rejecting Federal COVID Vaccine Mandate

The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the rulings in three lower court cases that had challenged the Biden administration’s federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal agency employees and military service personnel. The decision by the nation’s highest court to grant the Biden administration’s request to set aside the previous judicial rulings rejecting a federal COVID vaccine mandate erases the legal precedent set by the lower courts.

The Appellate courts were split in their decisions about the COVID vaccine mandate with those challenging the federal vaccine mandate succeeding in some cases and the Biden administration prevailing in other cases.

The Supreme Court majority instructed the lower court to dismiss the cases as moot after the vaccine mandates were rescinded. By wiping out the historical record, the Supreme Court has ensured that any legal challenges to future vaccine mandates will be cases of first impression without precedent.1 2

Keep reading

Biden Administration Urges Supreme Court To Overturn Injunction on Federal Agencies Influencing Tech Censorship

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed an injunction against federal agencies to stop the current White House from colluding with Big Tech’s social media.

And now, the Biden Administration is going to the US Supreme Court in a last-ditch attempt to reverse this decision.

The big picture effect – or at least, the intended meaning – of the Fifth Circuit ruling was to stop the government from working with Big Tech in censoring online content.

There’s little surprise that this doesn’t sit well with that government, which now hopes that the federal appellate court’s decision can be overturned.

The White House says the ruling is banning its “good” work done alongside social media to combat “misinformation”; instead of admitting its actions to amount to collusion with Big Tech – which has been amply documented now, not least by the Twitter Files – the government insists its actions are serving the public, and its “ability” to discuss relevant issues.

We obtained a copy of the petition for you here.

US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy is back again here – to say that what those now in power in the US (a message amplified by legacy media) did ahead of the 2020 presidential election, as well as subsequently regarding the pandemic “misinformation” – which is now fairly widely accepted to be censorship (“moderation”) – is what Murthy still calls, justified.

Keep reading

California Defies SCOTUS by Imposing Myriad New Restrictions on Public Gun Possession

A California law that is scheduled to take effect on January 1 will impose a host of new restrictions on public possession of firearms. That may seem counterintuitive, since Senate Bill 2 is the state legislature’s response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which upheld the Second Amendment right to carry guns for self-defense outside the home. But California, like several other states with discretionary carry-permit policies that had to be revised because of Bruen, is attempting an end run around that decision by simultaneously making permits easier to obtain and much harder to use.

In Bruen, the Supreme Court said states may not require permit applicants to demonstrate “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.” Accordingly, S.B. 2, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law on September 26, eliminates California’s “good cause” requirement, along with a similarly amorphous “good character” criterion (although it still disqualifies applicants deemed “reasonably likely” to pose a danger to themselves or others). By limiting the discretion of licensing authorities, S.B. 2 notes, those changes could have opened the door to “broadly allowing individuals to carry firearms in most public areas.” Deeming that outcome intolerable, legislators instead decreed that guns may not be carried in most public areas.

Copying the constitutionally dubious approach taken by states such as New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii, S.B. 2 designates myriad locations as “sensitive places” where guns are not permitted. It also establishes a default rule that people may not bring guns into a business unless the owner “clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of the building or on the premises indicating that licenseholders are permitted to carry firearms on the property.”

As a federal lawsuit challenging those rules notes, the law “turns the Bruen decision on its head, making nearly every public place in California a ‘sensitive place’ (in name only)” and “forbidding firearm carry even after someone has undertaken the lengthy and expensive process to be issued a concealed handgun license.” California’s gun-free zones  “include every park and playground, every hospital, all public transportation, any place that sells alcohol (which, in California, includes most gas stations and convenience and grocery stores), all land under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or the Department of Fish and Wildlife (with exceptions for hunting), libraries, churches, banks, and many more.” S.B. 2 “even transforms private businesses into ‘gun-free zones’ by default, imposing an unprecedented affirmative duty on private business owners to post signage to authorize people exercising an enumerated constitutional right to enter the property.”

As a result, says the complaint in May v. Bonta, “Californians who desire to exercise their enumerated right to carry are essentially limited to some streets and sidewalks (so long as those public places are not adjacent to certain other ‘sensitive’ places), plus a few businesses willing to post a ‘guns allowed’ sign at the risk of potentially losing other customers by doing so.” The law “creates a patchwork quilt of locations where Second Amendment rights may and may not be exercised, thus making exercise of the right so impractical and legally risky in practice that ordinary citizens will be deterred from even attempting to exercise their rights in the first place.”

Keep reading