Skip to content

Supreme Court ready to toss out loony Louisiana “coercion” case

Last year a Trump judge in Louisiana issued a deranged ruling that said the Biden administration "seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth'"—and therefore prohibited all communication with social media from a slew of federal agencies. On appeal, even the 5th Circuit couldn't stomach most of it, but they left a few bits of the ruling intact. Today the Supreme Court indicated that it was likely to whack the rest of it:

A majority of the justices appeared convinced that government officials should be able to try to persuade private companies, whether news organizations or tech platforms, not to publish information so long as the requests are not backed by coercive threats.

Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Elena Kagan, both former White House lawyers, said interactions between administration officials and news outlets provided a valuable analogy. Efforts by officials to influence coverage were, they said, part of a valuable dialogue that was not prohibited by the First Amendment.

Evidence of coercion in the original case was basically nonexistent, so that shouldn't be a problem. It would sure be nice to see a unanimous reversal in this case, but I suppose it's too much to hope that Sam Alito will join in. Anything that's bad for Republicans will never get his vote.

5 thoughts on “Supreme Court ready to toss out loony Louisiana “coercion” case

  1. MF

    So how far can the government go?

    For example, can a government official call up and say "If we cannot solve these problems we will need to ask Congress to repeal Section 230 liability protections for social media companies."

    1. Citizen99

      Thanks yet again, Kevin. I had seen some "straight" reporting on this and didn't get a sense of what to expect, but you've cleared a lot of it up.

    2. tinbox

      The Supreme Court has a very high bar for "official acts" with regard to corruption, so if their views on coercion are similar, then just "asking" Congress would not meet the threshold for a First Amendment violation.

    3. Crissa

      What is that even supposed to mean?

      Is the government allowed to tell you which laws stop you from doing a thing?

      What?

Comments are closed.