https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wmgzTVcG7E8UHALgWCfyxiENV4QC7UTC/view?usp=sharing
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
STATE OF MISSOURI, ET AL.
VERSUS
JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., ET AL.
MEMORANDUM RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01213
JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY
MAG. JUDGE KAYLA D. MCCLUSKY
At issue before the Court is a Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 10] filed by Plaintiffs. The Defendants oppose the Motion [Doc. No. 266]. Plaintiffs have filed a reply to theopposition [Doc. No. 276]. The Court heard oral arguments on this Motion on May 26, 2023 [Doc. No. 288]. Amicus Curiae briefs have been filed in this proceeding on behalf of Alliance Defending Freedom, the Buckeye Institute, and Children’s Health Defense.
CONCLUSION
Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one place to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source 154 of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.
Harry S. Truman
The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country.
Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it in terms of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.”721
The Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence in support of their claims that they were the victims of a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign. This court finds that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment free speech claim against the Defendants. Therefore, a preliminary injunction should issue immediately against the Defendants as set out herein. The Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 10] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
The Plaintiffs’ request to certify this matter as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Article 23(b)(2) is DENIED.MONROE, LOUISIANA this 4th day of July 2023
TERRY A. DOUGHTY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment