Back in June, the Supreme Court overturned an injunction against the case, then called Murthy v. Missouri, that barred the White House, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), CISA, and the Surgeon General's office from conspiring with social media companies like Facebook to suppress speech.
Many people were targeted by the kind of censorship that Missouri v. Biden aims to remediate. Plaintiffs include Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, Aaron Kheriaty, and Jill Hines, all of whom were deemed by the Supreme Court to lack sufficient standing.
Because the SCOTUS decision was made based on limited discovery at the preliminary injunction stage of the proceedings, the U.S. District Court in Louisiana's western district decided that more is needed to substantiate that injunction if it is going to remain intact.
"Initial findings from the limited discovery available at the preliminary injunction stage revealed an extensive network of censorship involving more than a dozen agencies and over a hundred government officials, possibly implicating many more yet uncovered," reports explain.
"These agencies were reportedly directed by the White House to manipulate social media content, particularly contradicting the federal government's stances on issues from Covid-19 to electoral processes."
(Related: Did you know that Google has begun censoring people's private Gmail accounts as part of a new Orwellian anti-"misinformation" scheme?)
NCLA tells Fauci to preserve all records – they're coming out in discovery
Apart from this lawsuit, the censorship activities of the Biden regime would still be largely hidden. Many people have known since the beginning that it has been happening, but only now is the proof finally coming out to show that the current outgoing administration is violating the First Amendment with its hidden actions.
The Supreme Court, by the way, has not evaluated the merits of the case. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch did, however, comment on the plaintiffs' claims in agreement that the government actions during the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) "pandemic" violated the First Amendment.
The aforementioned plaintiffs are represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA).
"We now consistently proceed – burdened by what has been," wrote U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty, apparently referencing a now-obsolete quote from failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris.
"The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants' conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the years-long communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social media platforms, about different topics. This Court's standing doctrine prevents us from 'exercis[ing such] general legal oversight' of the other branches of Government. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
The NCLA issued its own statement as well thanking Judge Doughty and offering words of hopeful optimism about how the case could end up being ruled.
"Thankfully, the District Court isn't allowing the government to get away with its unlawful censorship enterprise by carrying it out in secret," said Jenin Younes, NCLA's litigation counsel.
"We welcome the opportunity to show that the government was and continues to be responsible for censorship of our clients."
Earlier this year, the NCLA sent a letter to Tony Fauci putting him on notice that he had better preserve all records in accordance with the law so they can all come out in discovery as the case continues to move forward.
The last gasps of a dying empire usually include cries for more censorship. Learn more at Censorship.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
