Legal scholars dismantle Trump judge’s 'novel' injunction in GOP AGs’ lawsuit against Biden officials
Legal experts are questioning the legitimacy of Louisiana District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty's ruling against President Joe Biden administration officials earlier this week, Reuters reports.
According to American Prospect's Ryan Cooper, Doughty "issued a temporary injunction prohibiting federal agencies — including the FBI, Department of Health and Human Services, the Census Bureau, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and many others — from even talking to social media companies with 'the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.'"
Cooper argues the ruling — which Biden officials are appealing — is a "'conspiracy theory' claiming that Twitter conspired against conservatives before Elon Musk purchased the company and took over as CEO," adding, "The plaintiffs claim they were silenced when pre-Musk Twitter deleted posts expressing opposition to COVID-19 vaccines."
Similarly, Reuters reports "Several legal scholars and attorneys said while the lawsuit challenging the administration's communications with social media companies raised real free speech concerns, there was no precedent to support the sweeping preliminary order issued Tuesday by" Doughty "that would sharply limit dozens of government agencies and officials' communications with social media companies."
The news outlet also notes "While the 5th Circuit is considered to be among the most conservative of the federal appeals courts, it has reversed previous orders by Doughty in the case that would have allowed senior administration officials to be questioned."
"Skeptical of the free speech claims," New York University School of Law professor Burt Neuborne said, "I'm not aware of a single communication that conveys a threat or any form of either express or implied statement saying, 'You'd better do this, or else.' This opinion seems to think that when the government talks to you it inevitably is frightening you."
George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley deemed the Louisiana judge's decision a "very important moment for those of us who have been challenging the different censorship programs and projects by the government."
READ MORE: GOP frustrated as House investigations fail to find dirt on Biden: report
Per Reuters, Turley insisted "the injunction 'will have a difficult time on appeal, because it is such a rare and novel order.'"
Additionally, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, Jameel Jaffer, added that the ruling points to "difficult First Amendment questions," despite the fact it "doesn't really offer any principled way of separating legitimate government speech from illegitimate government coercion."
He emphasized Doughty took an "'I-know-it-when-I-see-it' approach, and that his far-reaching solution was much too broad," according to the report.
READ MORE: 'An embarrassment': Jim Jordan’s hearings slammed by legal experts as 'far-right snipe hunt'
Reuters' full report is available at this link (subscription required).
