Advertisement

Alito Extends Order Temporarily Halting Biden Admin’s Social Media Limitations

Advertisement

OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.


The White House has gotten another ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that administration officials likely aren’t happy about.

Last week, Justice Samuel Alito extended an appeals court ruling that paused a lower court’s decision to block President Joe Biden’s administration from pressuring social media companies to remove posts that federal officials deemed ‘misinformation.’

“The decision to keep the matter on hold until Wednesday gives the court more time to consider the administration’s request to block an injunction issued by a lower court that had concluded that federal officials likely had violated the free speech protections of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment by coercing social media platforms into censoring certain posts,” Reuters reported.

“Alito’s order pauses the dispute until Sept. 27 at 11:59 p.m. EDT. He had previously halted the lower court’s ruling through Sept. 22,” the outlet added. “Alito is the justice designated by the court to act on certain matters arising from a group of states that include Louisiana, where the lawsuit was first filed.”

Advertisement

The Daily Wire reported in July that Chief U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty, who was appointed by then-President Donald Trump, issued an injunction forbidding Biden administration officials from communicating with social media firms in what was viewed as a huge First Amendment victory.

U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), who was a state attorney general at the time, filed the complaint, claiming that federal officials made concerted efforts to exert unwarranted pressure over social media platforms, which he argued resulted in the censorship of views that differed from the administration’s ‘official’ positions.

“White House officials, CDC & others are stopped cold. We need to continue the fight to take down the Vast Censorship Enterprise,” Schmitt tweeted following the decision. “Their view of ‘misinformation’ isn’t an excuse to censor. This is the most important free speech case in a generation. Freedom is on the march.”

White House officials, CDC & others are stopped cold. We need to continue the fight to take down the Vast Censorship Enterprise. Their view of ‘misinformation’ isn’t an excuse to censor. This is the most important free speech case in a generation. Freedom is on the march,” Schmitt added, calling the decision a “[b]ig win for the First Amendment on this Independence Day.”

There are some exceptions that Doughty allowed. The Washington Post reported he will allow for government officials to have contact with social media companies to inform them of posts involving “criminal activity or criminal conspiracies,” “national security threats, extortion, or other threats,” and crimes related to U.S. elections.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, the nation’s highest court looks set to rein in other Biden administration priorities.

For example, Biden’s plans to tax ‘the rich’ could be scrapped soon after the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that Biden’s $430 billion-plus student loan forgiveness was unconstitutional.

The central question in the case is, according to SCOTUS Blog, “Whether the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states.” That amendment, of course, allowed the Legislative Branch, for the first time in the country’s history, to legally impose an income tax.

Test your skills with this Quiz!

“Reward work, not just wealth. Pass my proposal for a billionaire minimum tax,” Biden said during the State of the Union address earlier this year. “Because no billionaire should pay a lower tax rate than a school teacher or a firefighter.”

“Biden later proposed a 25% annual tax on all gains to wealth in excess of $100 million in a given year, including unrealized capital gains which aren’t currently taxable. The White House says that the tax would only apply to the top 0.01% of the highest earners. While the proposal faces long odds with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives, it could be nixed permanently if the high court rules such a tax is unconstitutional,” The Washington Examiner reported.

Advertisement