Justice Department Appeals to 5th Circuit to Stay Injunction on Government Communications with Social Media Companies
The Justice Department has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to stay a preliminary injunction that places significant limits on government communications with social media companies. The department argues that the sweeping order could hinder law enforcement activity aimed at protecting national security interests. The request, which spans 22 pages, was filed just hours after U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty denied the Justice Department’s initial request for a stay. Judge Doughty had imposed the preliminary injunction on July 4, restricting government communications with social media companies.
The Justice Department’s filing suggests that it may seek the intervention of the Supreme Court. At the very least, the department urges the 5th Circuit to put the order on hold for 10 days, allowing the highest court in the nation time to consider an application for a stay.
In its filing, the Justice Department warns that the injunction could prohibit a wide range of communications between the government and the tech industry. For example, it could prevent the president from denouncing misinformation about a natural disaster circulating online. The department also argues that the order has the potential to disrupt communications regarding the fentanyl crisis or the security of federal elections. It cautions that the injunction creates legal uncertainty that could result in “disastrous delays” in responding to misinformation.
Judge Doughty rejected the Justice Department’s request for a stay, stating that the order already includes exceptions for communications related to criminal activity, national security threats, cyberattacks, and foreign attempts to interfere in elections. He also noted that the Biden administration did not provide specific examples of communications that would cause grave harm to the American people or democratic processes if included under the injunction. Judge Doughty, who was appointed by former President Trump, wrote in his denial of the stay that the injunction only prohibits something that the defendants have no legal right to do, which is contacting social media companies to pressure or induce the removal of content containing protected free speech.
However, the Justice Department’s appeal to the 5th Circuit argues that the exceptions mentioned by Judge Doughty do not address the overbreadth and vagueness of the injunction. The department poses questions in its request, such as whether federal officials can respond to false stories on influential social media accounts with public statements refuting the story or answer unsolicited questions from platforms about the veracity of a story. It asserts that no plausible interpretation of the First Amendment would prevent the government from taking such actions, but the injunction could be interpreted to do so.
Civil rights groups, academics, and tech industry officials have expressed concerns about the order, which places restrictions on more than a dozen health and law enforcement agencies and officials across the federal government. They argue that it could undermine efforts to address disinformation on social media and potentially unravel the safeguards put in place to protect U.S. elections following revelations of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The State Department recently canceled a meeting with Facebook’s parent company, Meta, regarding 2024 election preparations in response to Judge Doughty’s injunction.
Despite the injunction, state election officials have stated that they will continue their efforts to combat online disinformation. Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon criticized the injunction but believes it will not significantly impact his office’s work, which includes communicating with social media platforms and operating a website that debunks voting-related falsehoods. Simon noted that the lawsuit underlying the injunction argues that the federal government’s regulatory role gives it leverage that state offices do not possess.
Pennsylvania’s top election official, Al Schmidt, also does not anticipate any changes in the state’s plans to counter election misinformation. Schmidt, a Republican appointed by Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro, acknowledged that it is too early to predict whether legal challenges will present obstacles at the state level but believes it will not affect their efforts to combat misinformation in the election space.
What potential consequences could the broad scope and lack of specificity in the injunction have on government efforts to combat online extremism and protect national security
Statements, whether they can communicate with social media companies to address misinformation during emergencies, and whether they can engage with platforms to combat online extremism. The department emphasizes that the order not only restricts direct communications but also covers any indirect communications, making it overly broad.
Furthermore, the Justice Department asserts that the injunction imposes burdensome requirements on the government, which would impede its ability to address pressing issues related to national security and public safety. The department argues that the order goes beyond protecting individuals’ constitutional rights and interferes with the government’s duty to safeguard the country’s interests.
In its filing, the Justice Department highlights the potential consequences of the injunction on critical government functions. It warns that the order could hamper efforts to combat cyberattacks, prevent the spread of harmful content, and address threats to national security. The department asserts that the order’s broad scope and lack of specificity create confusion and hinder effective communication between government agencies and social media companies.
The request for a stay is seen by legal experts as an indication of the Justice Department’s intention to pursue the case further. If the 5th Circuit denies the stay, the department may consider seeking relief from the Supreme Court. The outcome of this appeal will have significant implications for government communications with social media platforms and the balance between protecting free speech and ensuring national security.
The Justice Department’s call to pause the injunction on government communications with social media companies seems like an attempt to maintain transparency and ensure efficient information exchange. However, it raises concerns about potential misuse of power and censorship. Striking a balance between national security and protecting free speech rights is crucial in these rapidly evolving digital times.