Here is the full text of the restraining order issued on July 4th barring Biden administration officials from contacting social media companies, and a plain English explanation of what it means. In a stunning and unusual move, and a win for fake Covid news and fake election news, Federal Judge Terry Doughty issued a sweeping restraining order on July 4th (hrrmmm), barring Biden administration agencies and named officials and agents of the administration from contacting social media sites regarding content that appears on the site. This order was aimed squarely at Biden administration efforts to stem the flow of fake news about Covid and fake news about elections.
Indeed, fully half of the 6-page order is taken up with the names of agencies and individuals who are barred from contacting social media sites to talk about content that is on the site. And six of them are administration Covid officials.
You can read the full order below, however the bottom line is that this order restrains any agency or individual connected with the current administration from contacting social media companies (defined in the order as “Facebook/Meta, Twitter, YouTube/Google, WhatsApp, Instagram, WeChat, TikTok, Sina Weibo, QQ, Telegram, Snapchat, Kuaishou, Qzone, Pinterest, Reddit, LinkedIn, Quora, Discord, Twitch, Tumblr, Mastodon, and like companies”) to bring to their attention “for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content” which contains ‘protected free speech’ (which is defined in a footnote in the order as “speech that is protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution in accordance with jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal and District Courts”).
Now, this is clearly at least 1 part stunt to 1 part…whatever else. First, it was issued on the 4th of July (a Federal holiday, so they had to coordinate with this judge to have this issued on this day, as Judge Doughty should have been out celebrating the 4th of July, or at least not working because, again, it was a Federal holiday). Second, this order is so incredibly broad, and aimed at individuals, that if it were any other court system in the U.S., in nearly any other era, it would be immediately overturned by whatever court to which it will be appealed.
But mostly we say that this is at least one part stunt because after all of the bloviating language making a show of big badness and taking a stand against all of these agencies and officials, the order goes on to make several exceptions, meaning when the agencies and individuals are still allowed to contact social media companies, and they include:
The Internet Patrol is completely free, and reader-supported. Your tips via CashApp, Venmo, or Paypal are appreciated! Receipts will come from ISIPP.
CashApp us
Venmo us
Paypal us
(1) informing social-media companies of postings involving criminal activity or criminal conspiracies;
(2) contacting and/or notifying social-media companies of national security threats, extortion, or other threats posted on its platform;
(3) contacting and/or notifying social-media companies about criminal efforts to suppress voting, to provide illegal campaign contributions, of cyber-attacks against election infrastructure, or foreign attempts to influence elections;
(4) informing social-media companies of threats that threaten the public safety or security of the United States;
(5) exercising permissible public government speech promoting government policies or views on matters of public concern;
(6) informing social-media companies of postings intending to mislead voters about voting requirements and procedures;
(7) informing or communicating with social-media companies in an effort to detect, prevent, or mitigate malicious cyber activity;
(8) communicating with social-media companies about deleting, removing, suppressing, or reducing posts on social-media platforms that are not protected free speech by the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Of course 4 and 5 actually allow agencies and administration officials to contact social media companies about fake news about Covid, and 3 and 6 allow them to contact social media companies about fake election news, nearly completely defanging this order.
In other words, at the end of the day what this order does is nothing more than prove that the plaintiffs are grandstanding (we wonder if it is to distract and detract attention away from something else, in which case what could that be?), and that Judge Terry Doughty is definitely not an impartial juror.
Here’s the PDF of the order, with the full text in plain text below it.
Missouri v Biden Judge Terry Doughty TROFull Text of Missouri v. Biden Order Barring Biden Administration Officials from Contacting Social Media Companies
Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 294 Filed 07/04/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 26947
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
STATE OF MISSOURI, ET AL. CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01213
VERSUS JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY
JOSEPH R BIDEN JR., ET AL. MAG. JUDGE KAYLA D. MCCLUSKY
JUDGMENT
For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Ruling on the Request for Preliminary
Injunction,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 10] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES (“HHS”) and THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND
INFECTIOUS DISEASES (“NIAID”), and specifically the following employees of the HHS and
NIAID: XAVIER BECERRA,1 Secretary of HHS; DR. HUGH AUCHINCLOSS, Director of
NIAID; YOLANDA BYRD, HHS Digital Engagement Team; CHRISTY CHOI, HHS Office of
Communications; ASHLEY MORSE, HHS Director of Digital Engagement; JOSHUA PECK,
HHS Deputy Assistant Secretary, Deputy Digital Director of HHS successor (formerly JANELL
MUHAMMED); along with their secretaries, directors, administrators and employees;
SURGEON GENERAL VIVEK H. MURTHY, KATHARINE DEALY, Chief Engagement
Officer for the Surgeon General, along with her secretaries, directors, administrators, and
employees; the CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (“CDC”), and
specifically the following employees: CAROL Y. CRAWFORD, Chief of the Digital Media
1 All individuals named in this Judgment are being sued in their official capacities.
1
Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 294 Filed 07/04/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 26948
Branch of the CDC Division of Public Affairs; JAY DEMPSEY, Social-media Team Leader,
Digital Media Branch, CDC Division of Public Affairs; KATE GALATAS, CDC Deputy
Communications Director; UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU (“Census Bureau”), and
specifically the following employees: JENNIFER SHOPKORN, Census Bureau Senior Advisor
for Communications, Division Chief for the Communications Directorate, and Deputy Director of
the Census Bureau Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, along with their
secretaries, directors, administrators and employees; the FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION (“FBI”), and specifically the following employees: LAURA DEHMLOW,
Section Chief, FBI Foreign Influence Task Force; ELVIS M. CHAN, Supervisory Special Agent
of Squad CY-1 in the FBI San Francisco Division; THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, along with their secretary, director, administrators, and employees; the following
members of the Executive Office of the President of the United States: White House Press
Secretary KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, Counsel to the President; STUART F. DELERY, White
House Partnerships Manager; AISHA SHAH, Special Assistant to the President; SARAH
BERAN, MINA HSIANG, Administrator of the United States Digital Service within the Office
of Management and Budget; ALI ZAIDI, White House National Climate Advisor; White House
Senior COVID-19 Advisor successor (formerly ANDREW SLAVITT); Deputy Assistant to the
President and Director of Digital Strategy successor (formerly ROB FLAHERTY); DORI
SALCIDO, White House COVID-19 Director of Strategic Communications and Engagement;
White House Digital Director for the COVID-19 Response Team successor (formerly CLARKE
HUMPHREY); Deputy Director of Strategic Communications and Engagement of the White
House COVID-19 Response Team successor (formerly BENJAMIN WAKANA); Deputy
Director for Strategic Communications and External Engagement for the White House COVID-
2
Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 294 Filed 07/04/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 26949
19 Response Team successor (formerly SUBHAN CHEEMA); White House COVID-19 Supply
Coordinator successor (formerly TIMOTHY W. MANNING); Chief Medical Advisor to the
President, DR. HUGH AUCHINCLOSS, along with their directors, administrators and
employees; the CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY
(“CISA”), and specifically the following employees: JEN EASTERLY, Director of CISA; KIM
WYMAN, Senior Cybersecurity Advisor and Senior Election Security Leader; LAUREN
PROTENTIS; GEOFFREY HALE; ALLISON SNELL; BRIAN SCULLY, Officials of CISA;
the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (“DHS”), and
specifically the following employees: ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary of DHS;
ROBERT SILVERS, Under-Secretary of the Office of Strategy, Policy and Plans; SAMANTHA
VINOGRAD, Senior Counselor for National Security in the Official of the Secretary for DHS,
along with their secretary, directors, administrators, and employees; the UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF STATE (“State Department”), and specifically the following employees:
LEAH BRAY, Acting Coordinator of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center
(“GEC”); ALEX FRISBIE, State Department Senior Technical Advisor and member of the
Technology Engagement Team at the GEC; DANIEL KIMMAGE, Acting Coordinator of the
GEC, along with their secretary, directors, administrators, and employees ARE HEREBY
ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from taking the following actions as to social-media
companies:2
2 “Social-media companies” include Facebook/Meta, Twitter, YouTube/Google, WhatsApp, Instagram, WeChat,
TikTok, Sina Weibo, QQ, Telegram, Snapchat, Kuaishou, Qzone, Pinterest, Reddit, LinkedIn, Quora, Discord,
Twitch, Tumblr, Mastodon, and like companies.
3
Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 294 Filed 07/04/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 26950
(1) meeting with social-media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging,
pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content
containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms;3
(2) specifically flagging content or posts on social-media platforms and/or forwarding
such to social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for
removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech;
(3) urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner social-media
companies to change their guidelines for removing, deleting, suppressing, or reducing content
containing protected free speech;
(4) emailing, calling, sending letters, texting, or engaging in any communication of any
kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for
removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech;
(5) collaborating, coordinating, partnering, switchboarding, and/or jointly working
with the Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project, the Stanford Internet Observatory, or
any like project or group for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any
manner removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content posted with social-media
companies containing protected free speech;
(6) threatening, pressuring, or coercing social-media companies in any manner to
remove, delete, suppress, or reduce posted content of postings containing protected free speech;
3 “Protected free speech” means speech that is protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution in accordance with jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal
and District Courts.
4
Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 294 Filed 07/04/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 26951
(7) taking any action such as urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any
manner social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce posted content protected
by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
(8) following up with social-media companies to determine whether the social-media
companies removed, deleted, suppressed, or reduced previous social-media postings containing
protected free speech;
(9) requesting content reports from social-media companies detailing actions taken to
remove, delete, suppress, or reduce content containing protected free speech; and
(10) notifying social-media companies to Be on The Lookout (“BOLO”) for postings
containing protected free speech.
This Preliminary Injunction precludes said named Defendants, their agents, officers, employees,
contractors, and all acting in concert with them from the aforementioned conduct. This Preliminary
Injunction also precludes said named Defendants, their agents, officers, employees, and
contractors from acting in concert with others who are engaged in said conduct.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following actions are NOT prohibited by this
Preliminary Injunction:
(1) informing social-media companies of postings involving criminal activity or
criminal conspiracies;
(2) contacting and/or notifying social-media companies of national security threats,
extortion, or other threats posted on its platform;
(3) contacting and/or notifying social-media companies about criminal efforts to
suppress voting, to provide illegal campaign contributions, of cyber-attacks against election
infrastructure, or foreign attempts to influence elections;
5
Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 294 Filed 07/04/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 26952
(4) informing social-media companies of threats that threaten the public safety or
security of the United States;
(5) exercising permissible public government speech promoting government policies
or views on matters of public concern;
(6) informing social-media companies of postings intending to mislead voters about
voting requirements and procedures;
(7) informing or communicating with social-media companies in an effort to detect,
prevent, or mitigate malicious cyber activity;
(8) communicating with social-media companies about deleting, removing,
suppressing, or reducing posts on social-media platforms that are not protected free speech by the
Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no security is required to be posted by Plaintiffs under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Preliminary Injunction Order shall remain in effect
pending the final resolution of this case or until further orders issue from this Court, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, or the Supreme Court of the United States.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERD that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 10] is
DENIED as to the following Defendants: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; U. S. Department
of Treasury; U.S. Election Assistance Commission; U. S. Department of Commerce and
employees Erica Jefferson, Michael Murray, Wally Adeyemo, Steven Frid, Brad Kimberly, and
Kristen Muthig; and Disinformation Governance Board (“DGB”) and its Director Nina Jankowicz.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no evidentiary hearing is required at this time.
6
Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 294 Filed 07/04/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 26953
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ request for certification of this proceeding
as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Article 23 (b)(2) is DENIED.
THUS, DONE AND SIGNED IN MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 4th day of July 2023.
TERRY A. DOUGHTY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
The Internet Patrol is completely free, and reader-supported. Your tips via CashApp, Venmo, or Paypal are appreciated! Receipts will come from ISIPP.
CashApp us
Venmo us
Paypal us
