State v. Biden

Docket Number23-30445
Decision Date08 September 2023
PartiesState of Missouri; State of Louisiana; Aaron Kheriaty; Martin Kulldorff; Jim Hoft; Jayanta Bhattacharya; Jill Hines, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; Vivek H. Murthy; Xavier Becerra; Department of Health &Human Services; Anthony Fauci; Et al., Defendants-Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit


State of Missouri; State of Louisiana; Aaron Kheriaty; Martin Kulldorff; Jim Hoft; Jayanta Bhattacharya; Jill Hines, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; Vivek H. Murthy; Xavier Becerra; Department of Health &Human Services; Anthony Fauci; Et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 23-30445

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

September 8, 2023

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:22-CV-1213

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.


A group of social-media users and two states allege that numerous federal officials coerced social-media platforms into censoring certain socialmedia content, in violation of the First Amendment. We agree, but only as to some of those officials. So, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, VACATE the injunction in part, and MODIFY the injunction in part.



For the last few years-at least since the 2020 presidential transition-a group of federal officials has been in regular contact with nearly every major American social-media company about the spread of "misinformation" on their platforms. In their concern, those officials- hailing from the White House, the CDC, the FBI, and a few other agencies- urged the platforms to remove disfavored content and accounts from their sites. And, the platforms seemingly complied. They gave the officials access to an expedited reporting system, downgraded or removed flagged posts, and deplatformed users. The platforms also changed their internal policies to capture more flagged content and sent steady reports on their moderation activities to the officials. That went on through the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2022 congressional election, and continues to this day.

Enter this lawsuit. The Plaintiffs-three doctors, a news website, a healthcare activist, and two states[1]-had posts and stories removed or downgraded by the platforms. Their content touched on a host of divisive topics like the COVID-19 lab-leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side-effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story. The Plaintiffs maintain that although the platforms stifled their speech, the government officials were the ones pulling the strings-they "coerced, threatened, and pressured [the] social-media platforms to censor [them]" through private


communications and legal threats. So, they sued the officials[2] for First Amendment violations and asked the district court to enjoin the officials' conduct. In response, the officials argued that they only "sought to mitigate the hazards of online misinformation" by "calling attention to content" that violated the "platforms' policies," a form of permissible government speech.

The district court agreed with the Plaintiffs and granted preliminary injunctive relief. In reaching that decision, it reviewed the conduct of several federal offices, but only enjoined the White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC, the FBI, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the Department of State. We briefly review-per the district court's order and the record-those officials' conduct.


Considering their close cooperation and the ministerial ecosystem, we take the White House and the Surgeon General's office together. Officials from both offices began communicating with social media companies-


including Facebook, Twitter (now known as "X"), YouTube, and Google- in early 2021. From the outset, that came with requests to take down flagged content. In one email, a White House official told a platform to take a post down "ASAP," and instructed it to "keep an eye out for tweets that fall in this same [] genre" so that they could be removed, too. In another, an official told a platform to "remove [an] account immediately"-he could not "stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately." Often, those requests for removal were met.

But, the White House officials did not only flag content. Later that year, they started monitoring the platforms' moderation activities, too. In that vein, the officials asked for-and received-frequent updates from the platforms. Those updates revealed, however, that the platforms' policies were not clear-cut and did not always lead to content being demoted. So, the White House pressed the platforms. For example, one White House official demanded more details and data on Facebook's internal policies at least twelve times, including to ask what was being done to curtail "dubious" or "sensational" content, what "interventions" were being taken, what "measurable impact" the platforms' moderation policies had, "how much content [was] being demoted," and what "misinformation" was not being downgraded. In one instance, that official lamented that flagging did not "historically mean[] that [a post] was removed." In another, the same official told a platform that they had "been asking [] pretty directly, over a series of conversations" for "what actions [the platform has] been taking to mitigate" vaccine hesitancy, to end the platform's "shell game," and that they were "gravely concerned" the platform was "one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy." Another time, an official asked why a flagged post was "still up" as it had "gotten pretty far." The official queried "how does something like that happen," and maintained that "I don't think our position is that you should remove vaccine hesitant stuff," but "slowing it down seems


reasonable." Always, the officials asked for more data and stronger "intervention[s]."

From the beginning, the platforms cooperated with the White House. One company made an employee "available on a regular basis," and another gave the officials access to special tools like a "Partner Support Portal" which "ensure[d]" that their requests were "prioritized automatically." They all attended regular meetings. But, once White House officials began to demand more from the platforms, they seemingly stepped-up their efforts to appease the officials. When there was confusion, the platforms would call to "clear up" any "misunderstanding[s]" and provide data detailing their moderation activities. When there was doubt, they met with the officials, tried to "partner" with them, and assured them that they were actively trying to "remove the most harmful COVID-19 misleading information." At times, their responses bordered on capitulation. One platform employee, when pressed about not "level[ing]" with the White House, told an official that he would "continue to do it to the best of [his] ability, and [he will] expect [the official] to hold [him] accountable." Similarly, that platform told the Surgeon General that "[w]e're [] committed to addressing the [] misinformation that you've called on us to address." The platforms were apparently eager to stay in the officials' good graces. For example, in an effort to get ahead of a negative news story, Facebook preemptively reached out to the White House officials to tell them that the story "doesn't accurately represent the problem or the solutions we have put in place."

The officials were often unsatisfied. They continued to press the platforms on the topic of misinformation throughout 2021, especially when they seemingly veered from the officials' preferred course. When Facebook did not take a prominent pundit's "popular post[]" down, a White House official asked "what good is" the reporting system, and signed off with "last time we did this dance, it ended in an insurrection." In another message, an


official sent Facebook a Washington Post article detailing the platform's alleged failures to limit misinformation with the statement "[y]ou are hiding the ball." A day later, a second official replied that they felt Facebook was not "trying to solve the problem" and the White House was "[i]nternally . . . considering our options on what to do about it." In another instance, an official-demanding "assurances" that a platform was taking action-likened the platform's alleged inaction to the 2020 election, which it "helped increase skepticism in, and an insurrection which was plotted, in large part, on your platform."

To ensure that problematic content was being taken down, the officials-via meetings and emails-pressed the platforms to change their moderation policies. For example, one official emailed Facebook a document recommending changes to the platform's internal policies, including to its deplatforming and downgrading systems, with the note that "this is circulating around the building and informing thinking." In another instance, the Surgeon General asked the platforms to take part in an "all-of-society" approach to COVID by implementing stronger misinformation "monitoring" programs, redesigning their algorithms to "avoid amplifying misinformation," targeting "repeat offenders," "[a]mplify[ing] communications from trusted . . . experts," and "[e]valuat[ing] the effectiveness of internal policies."

The platforms apparently yielded. They not only continued to take down content the officials flagged, and provided requested data to the White House, but they also changed their moderation policies expressly in accordance with the officials' wishes. For example, one platform said it knew its "position on [misinformation] continues to be a particular concern" for the White House, and said it was "making a number of changes" to capture and downgrade a "broader set" of flagged content. The platform noted that, in line with the officials' requests, it would "make sure that these additional


[changes] show results-the stronger demotions in particular should deliver real impact." Another time, a platform represented that it was going to change its moderation policies and activities to fit with express guidance from the CDC and other federal officials. Similarly, one platform noted that it was taking down...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT