In a landmark ruling on Tuesday, a federal judge temporarily barred several Biden administration officials and federal agencies from communicating with social media platforms.

In his 155-page ruling, Judge Terry Doughty of the US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Monroe Division said there is “substantial evidence” the government violated the First Amendment by engaging in a large-scale censorship campaign targeting content that questioned or countered establishment narratives on Covid-19.

Doughty said the “evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario.”

He added, “If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history. In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the federal government, and particularly the defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech. …

“During the Covid-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterised by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’”

Doughty granted the injunction as part of a lawsuit filed in May 2022 by the attorneys-general of Missouri and Louisiana along with several medical experts and journalists who claimed social media platforms censored their views, which ran counter to the official government narrative.

The lawsuit alleged the Biden administration and federal agencies collaborated with and “significantly encourage[d] Big Tech companies to suppress such speech” by pressuring them to engage in a “censorship-by-proxy scheme.”

Children’s Health Defence (CHD) and its chairman on leave, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, are plaintiffs in a similar case – a class action lawsuit filed in March. The lawsuit, which alleges a “systematic, concerted campaign” of censorship by the Biden administration and federal government, is pending before the same court.

In Tuesday’s ruling (page 17), Judge Doughty referenced Kennedy, mentioning the Biden administration’s efforts to remove tweets and other social media content Kennedy posted during the pandemic, and Kennedy’s inclusion in the so-called “Disinformation Dozen” by the Centre for Countering Digital Hate and the Virality Project.

Commenting on Tuesday’s ruling, Kennedy told The Defender: “This is one of the most important First Amendment cases in our nation’s history. Missouri v. Biden concerns every American regardless of party affiliation, political ideology, personal beliefs or religion.

“Freedom of speech has been the central foundation stone of our democracy since our nation’s birth. An American president has no right to wield White House power to silence his critics. These actions were anathema to our core American values and a disappointment to all those around the globe who see America as the world’s exemplary democracy.”

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry called the ruling “historic” and said it prevents the Biden administration from “censoring the core political speech of ordinary Americans” on social media.

In a statement shared with The Defender, Landry said:

The evidence in our case is shocking and offensive, with senior federal officials deciding that they could dictate what Americans can and cannot say on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other platforms about Covid-19, elections, criticism of the government and more. Today’s historic ruling is a big step in the continued fight to prohibit our government from unconstitutional censorship. We look forward to continuing to litigate the case and will vigorously defend the injunction on appeal.”

The injunction names several Biden administration officials and federal agencies, prohibiting them from having any discussions with social media platforms with the purpose of “encouraging, pressuring or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”

The ruling does not prohibit the Biden administration and federal agencies from communicating with social media companies regarding criminal activities and potential cybercrimes, national security threats, voter suppression efforts, threats to public safety or other content not protected by free speech.

Agencies named include the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the US Department of State and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

Administration officials named in the suit include Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, HHS Director Xavier Becerra, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and all employees of the DOJ and FBI.

Doughty specifically listed Facebook/Meta, Twitter, YouTube/Google, WhatsApp, Instagram, WeChat and TikTok in his ruling, which includes a carve-out allowing the government to communicate with these platforms in relation to posts containing criminal activity or national security threats.

In a Twitter post following the ruling, Sen Eric Schmitt (Republican-Montana), who was Missouri’s attorney-general when the lawsuit was filed in 2022, said, “Today’s court win is a huge win for the First Amendment and a blow to censorship.”

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey tweeted: “The court has granted our motion to BLOCK top officials in the federal government from violating the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans.”

In remarks shared with The Defender, several legal, public health and media experts applauded Doughty’s ruling.

Dr Aaron Kheriaty, a psychiatrist and director of the Bioethics and American Democracy Programme at the Ethics and Public Policy Centre who is one of the plaintiffs in the case, said: “The United States Constitution is something of a miracle. But unless we defend it, it’s just a piece of paper. This case is an important part of that effort, and it’s no accident that the judge released the ruling on the Fourth of July. It’s extremely rare for court rulings to be released on federal holidays. Yesterday’s injunction was an important step on a long road to the Supreme Court … Yesterday’s ruling marks the beginning of the end of the censorship leviathan.”

Responding to Doughty’s statement that “Viewpoint discrimination is an especially egregious form of content discrimination” that goes “beyond party lines,” Kheriaty added:

“Contrary to some of the media framing, this is not a partisan issue. The judge granted our injunction, because what the government has been doing clearly violates the highest law of the land, namely, the United States Constitution. It’s not a left/right issue. It’s a legal/illegal issue. The government’s behaviour has been criminal. Full stop.”

Kim Mack Rosenberg, acting general counsel for CHD, described Doughty’s ruling as “an important step to restore the fundamental right of every American to not only speak freely but to listen to and analyse a variety of viewpoints.”

She added: “As an American and on behalf of CHD, I am incredibly humbled that Judge Terry Doughty issued his judgment supporting free speech on Independence Day. Free speech is a cornerstone of our Bill of Rights and Judge Doughty has spoken out strongly and bravely in favour of preventing infringement on those rights in this age of social media.

“Truly and sadly, Americans have been deprived of not only their right to speak out about controversial issues – especially in the past three years – but also of the crucially important right to hear and assess various viewpoints on issues essential to our freedoms.”

W. Scott McCollough, an Austin-based internet and telecommunications lawyer, said Tuesday’s ruling was “a shining light.” McCollough said the ruling “recognises freedom” and that “the government can’t do what it was doing with these social media companies,” which he said have “effectively become government agents.”

• The Defender report