______________________________________________________________________________________________
Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 293 Filed 07/04/23 Page 1 of 155 Page ID #: 26792
1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
STATE OF MISSOURI,ET AL.CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01213 VERSUS JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY
JOSEPH R.BIDEN JR.,ET AL.MAG. JUDGE KAYLA D. MCCLUSKY
MEMORANDUM RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
At issue before the Court is a Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 10] filed by Plaintiffs.1The Defendants2oppose the Motion [Doc. No. 266]. Plaintiffs have filed a reply to the opposition [Doc. No. 276]. The Court heard oral arguments on this Motion on May 26, 2023[Doc. No. 288]. Amicus Curiae briefs have been filed in this proceeding on behalf of Alliance Defending Freedom,3the Buckeye Institute,4and Children’s Health Defense.51Plaintiffs consist of the State of Missouri, the State of Louisiana, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty (“Kheriaty”), Dr. Martin Kulldorff (“Kulldorff”), Jim Hoft (“Hoft”), Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya (“Bhattacharya”), and Jill Hines (“Hines”).2Defendants consist of President Joseph R Biden (“President Biden”), Jr, Karine Jean-Pierre (“Jean-Pierre”), Vivek H Murthy (“Murthy”), Xavier Becerra (“Becerra”), Dept of Health & Human Services (“HHS”), Dr. Hugh Auchincloss (“Auchincloss”), National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases (“NIAID”), Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (“CDC”), Alejandro Mayorkas (“Mayorkas”), Dept of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Jen Easterly (“Easterly”), Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”), Carol Crawford (“Crawford”),United States Census Bureau (“Census Bureau”), U. S. Dept of Commerce (“Commerce”), Robert Silvers (“Silvers”), Samantha Vinograd (“Vinograd”), Ali Zaidi (“Zaidi”), Rob Flaherty (“Flaherty”), Dori Salcido (“Salcido”), Stuart F. Delery (“Delery”), Aisha Shah (“Shah”), Sarah Beran (“Beran”), Mina Hsiang (“Hsiang”), U. S. Dept of Justice (“DOJ”), Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Laura Dehmlow (“Dehmlow”), Elvis M. Chan (“Chan”), Jay Dempsey (“Dempsey”), Kate Galatas (“Galatas”), Katharine Dealy (“Dealy”), Yolanda Byrd (“Byrd”), Christy Choi (“Choi”), Ashley Morse (“Morse”), Joshua Peck (“Peck”), Kym Wyman (“Wyman”), Lauren Protentis (“Protentis”), Geoffrey Hale (“Hale”), Allison Snell (“Snell”), Brian Scully (“Scully”), Jennifer Shopkorn (“Shopkorn”), U. S. Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”), Erica Jefferson (“Jefferson”), Michael Murray (“Murray”), Brad Kimberly (“Kimberly”), U. S. Dept of State (“State”), Leah Bray (“Bray”), Alexis Frisbie (“Frisbie”), Daniel Kimmage (“Kimmage”), U. S. Dept of Treasury (“Treasury”), Wally Adeyemo (“Adeyemo”), U. S. Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”), Steven Frid (“Frid”), and Kristen Muthig (“Muthig”).3[Doc. No. 252]4[Doc. No. 256]5[Doc. No. 262]
I.INTRODUCTIONI may disapprove of what you say, butI would defendto the death your right to say it.Evelyn Beatrice Hill, 1906,The Friends of VoltaireThis case is about the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The explosion of social-media platforms has resulted in unique free speech issues—this is especially true in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the presentcase 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 theDefendants named here, are alleged to haveblatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.Although the censorship alleged in this case almost exclusively targeted conservative speech, the issues raised herein go beyond party lines. The right to free speech is not a member of any political party and does not hold any political ideology. It is the purpose of the Free Speech Clause of the FirstAmendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of the market, whether it be by government itself or private licensee. Red Lion Broadcasting Co., v. F.C.C., 89 S.Ct. 1794, 1806 (1969).Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, through public pressure campaigns, privatemeetings, and other forms of direct communication, regarding what Defendants described as “disinformation,”“misinformation,”and “malinformation,”havecolluded with and/or coerced social-media platforms to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social-media platforms.Plaintiffs also allegethatthe suppression constitutes government action, and that it is a violation Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 293 Filed 07/04/23 Page 2 of 155 PageID #: 267933of Plaintiffs’freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Rose Rambles... 