A case at the Supreme Court alleging “collusion” between President Biden’s administration and Big Tech companies to silence specific speech on social media platforms is the “most important First Amendment suit in this nation’s history,” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey told Fox News Digital.
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri. The case originated from a lawsuit filed by state attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana accusing senior government officials of colluding with major social media companies to counter misinformation.
The lawsuit alleged that this collaboration ultimately led to the censorship of speech on various topics, including Hunter Biden’s laptop, the origins of COVID-19 and the effectiveness of face masks.
“This is the most important First Amendment suit in this nation’s history,” Bailey told Fox News Digital in an interview in late February. “We’ve uncovered a relationship of coercion and collusion between the Biden White House across a spectrum of federal bureaucratic agencies targeting free speech for censorship at the government’s demand on Big Tech social media platforms.”
“We’ve got to build a wall of separation between Big Tech and state to protect our First Amendment right to free speech,” Bailey said. “To that end, we went to court back in May and asked the United States District Court for a nationwide injunction to lay that first brick in the wall between tech and state.”
“The court granted the injunction on the Fourth of July – on the celebration of this nation’s founding – and we’ve successfully defended that injunction twice at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.”
Bailey added that the score is “Missouri three, Biden zero in the fight for free speech.” He said they’re “excited to continue to fight to protect Americans’ right to free speech on Big Tech platforms.”
The arguments for the case have garnered eyebrow-raising headlines, particularly from Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson, who commented that the First Amendment hamstrings the government.
On Monday, the Supreme Court debated whether the Biden administration’s efforts to reach out to private companies crossed a constitutional line. The discussion focused on whether these efforts amounted to permissible persuasion or encouragement or unlawful coercion and threats of retaliation.
GOP SENATOR WAVES AWAY WORRIES ABOUT SKEPTICAL JUSTICES IN CENSORSHIP SUPREME COURT CASE
“It’s got these big clubs available to it, and so it’s treating Facebook and these other platforms like their subordinates,” Justice Samuel Alito said.
Brown Jackson, meanwhile, took a different approach.
“Your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” she told the lawyer representing Louisiana, Missouri and private plaintiffs.
“The government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country… by encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information,” she said.
Reports have indicated that a majority of the court appeared doubtful about the lawsuit, asking questions suggesting they may disagree with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana.
A decision on the case is expected this summer.
The White House did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
