SCOTUS Makes Shocking Move After Unprecedented Ruling – Conservatives IRATE

OPINION:  This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion

In a censorship lawsuit, conservatives claimed President Biden overreached his authority when he ordered social media companies to block users and remove posts during the pandemic. On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration.

The administration erred in forcing Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter to remove messages about the epidemic, masks, or vaccines it deemed injurious to public health, the court ruled in a 6-3 decision, overturning the decision of a lower court. The Republican attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri, along with five plaintiffs who stated they were impacted, filed the lawsuit.

“The plaintiffs rely on allegations of past Government censorship as evidence that future censorship is likely,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion, the Daily Caller reported. “But they fail, by and large, to link their past social-media restrictions to the defendants’ communications with the platforms. Thus, the events of the past do little to help any of the plaintiffs establish standing to seek an injunction to prevent future harms.”

Samuel Alito, one of the conservative justices who dissented, wrote that the decision “permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.” Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch also dissented.

“It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so,” he wrote, the outlet added.

U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty of Louisiana concluded in July 2023 that the federal government had grossly overreached its jurisdiction when it “coerced or significantly encouraged” social media businesses to comply with its demands or suffer consequences. He remarked at the time that the “Orwellian” accusations might constitute “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” Even after a Fifth Circuit judge modified Doughty’s decision, it concluded that the FBI, CISA, Surgeon General, White House, and CDC had all violated the First Amendment.

The federal government criticized the earlier injunction in the most recent case, claiming that the lower court’s decision places “unprecedented limits on the ability of the President’s closest aides to use the bully pulpit to address matters of public concern.” Online conservatives attacked the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“The Supreme Court has ruled that, practically, the government can continue pressuring social media companies to censor Americans. This is an absolute gut punch,” Glenn Beck wrote on X. “SCOTUS finding a lack of standing for the plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri effectively means that the government is free to violate your rights so long as they do so through a third party,” added Spectator editor Amber Duke.

 

Additional writings by Justice Barrett were revealed by investigative writer Julie Kelly. The majority of the court determined that the plaintiffs had not shown proof that the government was responsible for incidents of repression on LinkedIn and Twitter. Barrett states in a different one that it’s possible Twitter censored a user based on its own policies rather than a federal agency’s orders.

On the same day, the Supreme Court publicly issued a draft of a major opinion, then shockingly deleted it before it had been visible for too long.

A cursory glance at the Supreme Court’s website suggests that the justices will likely maintain Idaho’s laws permitting emergency abortions when a woman’s health is in danger.

According to the 22-page unsigned document that was originally made public by Bloomberg News, the lawsuit was “dismissed as improvidently granted.” The majority upheld the judgment of a lower federal court that had temporarily lifted Idaho’s almost complete prohibition on abortions, enabling hospitals to carry out critical emergency abortions to safeguard the health of the pregnant woman.

In two cases that explore the conflict between the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) and Idaho’s pro-life abortion law, the Supreme Court recently released and removed the draft opinion. These cases are Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States. Deep splits within the Court regarding whether EMTALA requires abortions in specific medical crises, superseding more restrictive state laws, were exposed in the draft ruling.

“The court’s publications unit inadvertently and briefly uploaded a document to the court’s website,” spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said. She also guaranteed that the court will promptly release its rulings in the cases of Idaho v. United States and Moyle v. United States.

The Court revoked previous stays in its per curiam ruling, dismissing the writs of certiorari as unjustly granted. In a concurring opinion, Justice Kagan pointed out that while EMTALA mandates hospitals to give all necessary care, including abortions, to stabilize medical situations, Idaho law forbids abortions unless they are absolutely essential to avert a woman’s death, with no exceptions for substantial health concerns.

The federal government had sued Idaho, claiming that where an abortion is required to avoid serious health effects, EMTALA supersedes Idaho’s legislation. Idaho disputed the preliminary injunction that the lower courts had given to this effect, permitting women to have emergency abortions.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Barrett emphasized the need for lower courts to conduct additional research and the necessity of changing legal interpretations. “In order to determine whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) preempts a section of Idaho law that forbids abortions unless they are absolutely necessary to save the mother’s life, we granted certiorari before judgment in these cases,” the author stated. Idaho law has changed twice since this lawsuit started in the District Court. Furthermore, the parties’ conflicting positions have, at best, made it unclear what the dispute is about since we granted certiorari.

COMMENTS

 

 

 

 

 

Send this to a friend