UPDATE: Missouri v Biden
A 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the administrative stay on Judge Doughty's Injunction
On July 14th, The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the defendants an administrative stay over Judge Doughty’s Injunction, which prevented communications between the defendants and Tech platforms from stifling free speech. The court, “called for arguments in the case to be scheduled on an expedited basis.”
The stay removed the restrictions, thus allowing the defendants to resume communications to censor American citizens. However, the appeal is being sent to an oral argument merits panel for a determination.
If the appeal is granted, it would be a significant blow to the seemingly iron-clad case the plaintiffs brought forward. If the appeal is denied, the injunction will remain in place.
The argument the defendants made was “the ruling by Doughty is too vague and broad,” thus confusing the defendants, “raising questions about what officials can say in conversations with social media companies.” In a 20 page response, plaintiffs dismissed the assertions by administration lawyers’ assertions.
These are the judge’s words so you can decide whether his ruling also has you, the average American citizen, confused.
“—encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”
Judge Doughty also clarified the definition of protected free speech,” as discussed in the previous update. That clarification stated, “‘Protected free speech’ means speech which is protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution in accordance with the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court.”
“—Defendants argue that the injunction should be stayed because it might interfere with the Government’s ability to continue working with social-media companies to censor Americans’ core political speech on the basis of viewpoint. In other words, the Government seeks a stay of the injunction so that it can continue violating the First Amendment.”