In a bold move against free speech, a federal court just cleared the way for Missouri v. Biden to expose more government communications in a censorship case that has already made its way to the Supreme Court. Here we are again, facing another bombshell as President Biden’s administration stands accused of pressuring social media giants to censor speech and skew public discourse in favor of Democrats. If it sounds like a government-backed crusade to silence opposing views, that’s because, well, it probably is. This case has the potential to reveal just how far federal officials were willing to go to control online dialogue—anything to tip the scales, right?
After the Supreme Court ruled in June that the plaintiffs hadn’t met the heightened standard to get a preliminary injunction, the case returned to Louisiana District Court, where it first started. District Judge Terry Doughty didn’t just keep the door open—he flung it wide, allowing the plaintiffs to access more records from government agencies. The plaintiffs argue these records will show that high-ranking officials specifically targeted their voices, using major platforms like Facebook, Google, and X (formerly Twitter) as tools to silence them.
Judge Doughty, in his Nov. 8 decision, asserted that the plaintiffs had good reason to dig deeper. He wrote that their request wasn’t a “jurisdictional fishing expedition” and granted them the right to conduct further discovery. His ruling echoed concerns that powerful government agencies may have overstepped, possibly trampling First Amendment rights in the process.
The case, originally filed in August 2022, began by challenging the censorship of content that questioned the government’s COVID-19 lockdowns. However, further investigation and media coverage have revealed a much broader censorship pattern. It turns out the crackdown wasn’t just about COVID—it spanned topics like environmental policies, gender issues, and other subjects that veered away from the left’s party line. It seems the administration was perfectly content with using social media companies as their censorship arm, so long as it kept dissenting voices in check.
The plaintiffs, including the states of Missouri and Louisiana, doctors Jayanta Bhattacharya, Aaron Kheriaty, and Martin Kulldorff, and private citizens like Jill Hines and Jim Hoft, are taking on a lineup of federal heavyweights. Their lawsuit targets not only President Biden but also agencies like the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and the CDC, alleging these entities coordinated efforts to stifle voices on critical issues.
This case has attracted considerable attention, and Judge Doughty noted that every judge who reviewed it agreed that free speech violations occurred. He stopped short of allowing additional plaintiffs to join this round, including members of the “Disinformation Dozen” group allegedly targeted by Biden’s team for social media silencing. However, Doughty hinted this could change after the next discovery phase, as he encouraged the plaintiffs to revisit the idea later. This group notably includes recent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose involvement could add a new layer of complexity if he finds a place in the next administration.
Judge Doughty’s Nov. 8 decision also underscores the lawsuit’s central claim: that government officials have systematically attempted to silence political opposition. In legal terms, this is a First Amendment violation—a serious charge considering it involves officials sworn to protect those same rights. The plaintiffs’ legal team, featuring heavyweights like the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana and the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), argues that the government’s actions amount to a widespread assault on free speech. NCLA has a track record of defending constitutional principles, recently persuading the Supreme Court to overturn the Chevron deference, a precedent that had long allowed agencies to interpret laws as they pleased.
In June, the Supreme Court raised the bar for the plaintiffs, requiring a more solid link between the government’s actions and social media’s content restrictions to win a preliminary injunction. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, demanded proof of a “substantial risk” that government pressure would lead at least one platform to restrict speech from at least one plaintiff. But the dissenting justices, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito, disagreed, emphasizing that the evidence already showed clear interference.
They went so far as to call it one of the most significant free speech cases in recent years.
Judge Doughty’s latest ruling pushes the case forward, emphasizing that the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant a preliminary injunction doesn’t spell the end. According to Doughty, the plaintiffs have presented enough “smoke” to keep looking for the “fire”—that is, more evidence of government censorship. He acknowledged that uncovering the full scope of these alleged violations will require serious discovery, especially since the government controls many of the relevant documents.
The plaintiffs have until Nov. 29 to submit their list of documents they hope to access. The stakes couldn’t be higher. NCLA, representing other media outlets like the media and Texas in separate lawsuits, argues that the government’s interference has gone far beyond just one case. According to NCLA attorney Jenin Younes, those who’ve been censored by social media at the government’s urging deserve to know how deep the collusion went.
Missouri v. Biden could go down in history as a landmark free speech case. If successful, it would expose the lengths to which government officials went to control information and sway public opinion. And if it all unravels, the fallout could be monumental, making it clear that this is more than just a legal battle—it’s a fight for the American people’s right to speak freely without government interference.
