(New Orleans) A federal appeals court on Friday temporarily suspended a lower court order limiting communications by executive branch officials with social media companies over controversial online posts.
Lawyers for the Biden administration had asked the Court of Appeals on 5e District of New Orleans to stay the preliminary injunction issued July 4 by U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty.
Mr Doughty himself had refused a request to suspend his order pending appeal.
The brief prescription of the 5e Friday’s district suspended Judge Doughty’s order “until further court order.” She asks that the pleadings in the case be scheduled on an expedited basis.
Filed last year, the lawsuit claimed the administration had effectively censored free speech by discussing possible regulatory actions the government could take while pressuring companies to suppress what she considered misinformation.
COVID-19 vaccines, legal issues involving President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, and allegations of voter fraud were among the topics highlighted in the lawsuit.
Judge Doughty, appointed to the federal bench by former President Donald Trump, issued an order on Independence Day and the accompanying reasons ran to more than 160 pages.
He said the plaintiffs were likely to win their pending lawsuit. His injunction prevented the Department of Health and Human Services, the FBI, and several other government agencies and administration officials “from encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any way the removal, erasure, removal or reduction of content containing protected freedom of expression”.
Administration lawyers said the order was too broad and vague, raising questions about what officials may say in conversations with social media companies or in public statements. They argued that Justice Doughty’s order posed a threat of “serious” public harm by crippling the executive branch’s efforts to tackle online misinformation.
Judge Doughty denied the administration’s stay request on Monday, writing: ‘The defendants argue that the injunction should be stayed because it could interfere with the government’s ability to continue to work with social media companies to censor the fundamental political discourse of Americans based on the point of view. In other words, the government is asking for a stay of the injunction so that it can continue to violate the First Amendment. »
In its request that the 5e district grants a stay, administration attorneys said there was no evidence of threats from the administration. “The District Court identified no evidence to suggest that a threat accompanied any request to remove content. Indeed, the order denying the stay — which arguably highlights the strongest evidence — references a series of public statements in the media,” the administration said.