Sign Up

NCLA Site Search

Cases

Missouri, et al. v. Biden, et al. (f/k/a Murthy, et al. v. Missouri, et al.)

Back to Case Finder

CASE: Missouri, et al. v. Biden, et al. (f/k/a Murthy, et al. v. Missouri, et al.)

STATUS: Active

NCLA ROLE: Counsel

COURTS HEARD IN: SCOTUS, 5th Cir., W.D. LA

ORIGINAL COURT: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

DECIDING COURT: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

OPENED: August 2, 2022

AGENCIES: Centers for Disease Control | Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency | Department of Health and Human Services | Federal Bureau of Investigation | National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases | National Institutes for Health | President of the United States

FOCUS AREAS:

Due Process Violations

The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

Administrative Speech Controls

The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

CASE SUMMARY

Public statements, emails, and publicly released documents establish that the President of the United States and other senior officials in the Biden Administration have violated the First Amendment by directing social-media companies to censor viewpoints that conflicted with the government’s messaging on Covid-19.

NCLA joined the lawsuit, State of Missouri ex rel. Schmitt, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al., representing renowned epidemiologists and co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, as well as Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Jill Hines. Social media platforms, acting at the federal government’s behest, repeatedly censored NCLA’s clients for articulating views on those platforms in opposition to government-approved views on Covid-19 issues. This insidious censorship was the direct result of the federal government’s campaign to silence those who voice perspectives that deviate from those of the Biden Administration. Government officials’ public threats to punish social media companies that did not do their bidding demonstrate this linkage, as do emails from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to social media companies.

This sort of censorship, which strikes at the heart of what the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect—free speech, especially political speech—has constituted unlawful government action. Moreover, this state action has deprived Americans of their right to hear the views of those who are being silenced, a First Amendment corollary of the right to free speech.

OUR CLIENT

Authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, Drs. Martin Kulldorff, Sunetra Gupta, and Jay Bhattacharya

OUR TEAM

Jenin Younes
Litigation Counsel
John J. Vecchione
Senior Litigation Counsel
Zhonette Brown
General Counsel and Senior Litigation Counsel
Kaitlyn Schiraldi
Staff Attorney

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Response to Proposed Jurisdictional Discovery Plan

December 23, 2024 | Read More

Memorandum Order

November 8, 2024 | Read More

Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Further Discovery and in Opposition to Dismissal of the Complain

October 29, 2024 | Read More

Missouri v. Biden Brief Supporting Discovery and Opposing Dismissal

September 17, 2024 | Read More

Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court

June 26, 2024 | Read More

SEE 84 FILINGS
PRESS RELEASES

NCLA Wins Further Discovery in Historic Suit Against Government’s Censorship Industrial Complex

November 8, 2024 | Read More

NCLA Demands Further Discovery in Historic Suit Against Government’s Censorship Industrial Complex

September 18, 2024 | Read More

Supreme Court Issues Troubling Decision in NCLA Case Against Censorship Industrial Complex

June 26, 2024 | Read More

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Pivotal NCLA Case Against Gov’t Social Media Censorship

March 18, 2024 | Read More

Amici Support NCLA’s Stance at Supreme Court in Major Social Media Censorship Injunction Case

February 12, 2024 | Read More

SEE 17 PRESS RELEASES
IN THE MEDIA

Schrödinger’s Cat, Jurisdiction, and Missouri v. Biden 

NCLA Blog

November 12, 2024

The ‘Tell’ in Zuckerberg’s Letter to Congress

August 27, 2024

No Remedy for Censorship: The Perils of Murthy

July 2, 2024

Supreme Court must rely on the First Amendment, not its own precedent, when deciding government censorship case

March 27, 2024

SCOTUS Must Protect The 1st Amendment. The Biden Admin Certainly Won’t

March 18, 2024

SEE 27 MEDIA MENTIONS

CASE HIGHLIGHTS

RELATED CASES
  • Adir International v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: California

    View Case
  • American Home Furnishings Alliance, et al. v. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 30, 2023

    Agencies: Consumer Product Safety Commission

    View Case
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Walther, Dir., and Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    View Case
  • American Hospital Association, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al.

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 15, 2022

    Agencies: Department of Health and Human Services

    View Case
  • American Securities Association and Citadel Securities LLC v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Administrative Speech Controls

    The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

    Unreasonable Searches

    The Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless searches and seizures of information, yet the Administrative State violates this right to privacy through administrative subpoenas and warrants, automated information collection devices, civil investigative demands, and “voluntary” requests for information.

    Conditions on Spending

    Administrative agencies use unconstitutional conditions on spending to regulate the conduct of grantees. Rather than rule through law, the government simply purchases submission.

    Case Active - February 15, 2024

    Agencies: Securities and Exchange Commission

    View Case
  • AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC and FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Federal Trade Commission

    View Case

SHARE THIS CASE

Enter your email address above to be notified whenever we post a new document to this case.