A federal judge in Louisiana has issued temporary limits on how members of President Joe Biden’s administration can engage with social media companies, stating that the government had unlawfully pressured the companies to censor speech it found objectionable. The ruling stems from a case brought by two Republican attorneys general and five individuals who had campaigned against masks, vaccines, lockdowns, and had promoted discredited COVID-19 treatments. The judge’s preliminary injunction has already impacted government activities, with a scheduled meeting between State Department officials and social media executives being abruptly canceled. The Justice Department is reviewing the order to determine its implications. The ruling could have significant implications for First Amendment law and how the government can prevent the spread of potentially harmful information.

The case centers around allegations by conservatives that Democrats and tech executives have conspired to silence their views on social media platforms. The judge’s order frames the issue through the lens of partisan culture wars, raising questions about whether the government violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media companies to censor speech it found distasteful. The judge, appointed by former President Donald Trump, has previously expressed skepticism about vaccine skeptics and has ruled against the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for Head Start preschool programs. The broad scope of the ruling could make it challenging for the administration to comply, experts say.

The judge’s ruling describes various interactions between government officials and social media companies to combat misinformation. Examples include the surgeon general’s top aide urging Google, Facebook, and Twitter to do more to combat disinformation, CDC officials flagging “misinformation” posts to Facebook, and Jill Biden’s aides pressuring Twitter to remove a doctored video. The judge suggests that these interactions amounted to coercion and led to the removal of certain accounts and posts. Critics argue that the ruling hampers government efforts to combat misinformation and protect public health and security. The White House has pledged to comply with the injunction while stating it will continue to advocate for responsible actions and hold social media platforms accountable for their impact on the American people.

Legal experts note that the ruling creates uncertainty about what speech government officials can discuss with social media companies. It raises questions about how government officials can determine what speech poses a serious enough threat to warrant communication with the platforms. The judge’s order also alludes to the FBI’s investigation into Hunter Biden’s laptop, suggesting a link between the government’s contacts with social media companies and the platforms’ decision to remove information about the story. Conservatives have seized on this language to fuel broader political allegations against Biden and Democrats, while the administration denies unlawfully pressuring the social media companies. The platforms maintain that they make independent decisions about content moderation without government control. The case is ongoing, and the government has appealed the ruling.