The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrows restrictions on federal officials’ communication with social media platforms, focusing on content moderation.
On September 8, 2023, a federal appeals court issued a ruling that limits the Biden administration’s ability to interact with social media platforms regarding content moderation. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that federal officials, including those at the White House, the FBI, and top health agencies, must not “coerce or significantly encourage” social media companies to remove content labeled as misinformation. However, the court narrowed much of the previous injunction imposed by a Louisiana judge, which had restricted such communications more broadly.
The lower-court injunction stemmed from allegations by Republican state attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana. They claimed that federal officials, including members of the Biden administration, had pressured platforms like Facebook (Meta Platforms) and YouTube (Alphabet) to censor posts related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 U.S. elections, potentially violating First Amendment rights. The appeals court agreed with the state officials’ argument but made adjustments to the restrictions.
The three-judge panel, consisting of appointees of Republican presidents, concluded that while social media companies could not be coerced into censoring content, the injunction should be limited to certain agencies and officials. The ruling still bars the White House, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the surgeon general, and the FBI from pressuring social media platforms to remove posts, but it did not extend this to other federal officials.
The decision has been widely discussed, particularly on platforms like X (formerly Twitter), with Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey praising the ruling for protecting First Amendment rights. Bailey emphasized that it would prevent federal authorities from infringing on free speech by compelling platforms to remove content they may deem politically sensitive or misleading. The court’s ruling represents a shift in the ongoing legal battle over the intersection of government oversight and social media platforms’ content moderation policies.
