A high-stakes U.S. Supreme Court case to decide if collaboration between the federal government and social media companies to censor online speech violates the Constitution could hinge more on decades-old court precedents than on questions of internet-age technology, according to Children’s Health Defense (CHD) attorneys.
CHD on Feb. 9 filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court ahead of March 18 oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, a landmark censorship case filed in May 2022 by then-attorneys general of Missouri (Eric Schmitt) and Louisiana (Jeff Landry) and other plaintiffs.
An amicus brief is filed by non-parties to a lawsuit to provide information that has a bearing on the issues and to assist the court in reaching the correct decision.
CHD’s brief contends that the many documented contacts between White House officials and social media platforms pressing them to restrict particular voices and viewpoints cross a clear constitutional line protecting free speech.
CHD President Mary Holland, a co-author of the brief, told The Defender:
“If the court does not find what the Biden administration did to be unlawful, the First Amendment will really no longer exist. Then the government can simply ask proxies to do whatever it wants. It can outsource all its dirty work ‘legally’ in violation of the First Amendment…
Children's Health Defense 
Be First to Comment