A federal court has issued an injunction against a top agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), finding that it likely violated the First Amendment by collaborating with social media companies to effectively censor “election-related speech.”
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals extended an existing injunction that limits the Biden administration’s communication with big tech companies to now include the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) within the DHS, Fox News Digital reports.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, leading the litigation against the Biden administration, characterized CISA as the “nerve center” of a White House censorship effort and highlighted its collaboration with the FBI to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story.
A three-judge panel determined that CISA played a central role in the FBI’s interactions with social media platforms, pushing them to change their content moderation policies. The judges found that CISA used its frequent interactions with these platforms to advocate for more restrictive policies on censoring election-related speech and even determined the veracity of flagged information.
As a result, the court concluded that CISA likely significantly influenced the platforms’ content moderation decisions, thereby violating the First Amendment.
The injunction originated from a lawsuit filed by Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general against the Biden administration, accusing high-ranking government officials of collaborating with social media companies under the pretext of combating misinformation, which led to the censorship of speech on various topics.
Federal Judge Terry A. Doughty previously issued an injunction on July 4, ordering White House officials and federal agencies not to meet with tech companies about social media censorship, arguing that these actions were likely First Amendment violations. The judge’s decision compared the government’s actions to an “Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.'”
The Justice Department has appealed this court order to the Supreme Court, arguing that it may prevent the federal government from working with social media companies to prevent harm to the American people and democratic processes.
