(LifeSiteNews) — A new Supreme Court case could deliver a blow to the Deep State and Big Tech.
The Supreme Court of the United States recently announced it would hear Murthy v. Missouri. LifeSiteNews has extensively covered this case.
Simply put, it is about whether federal officials should be allowed to pressure and coordinate censorship of content on Big Tech platforms, such as YouTube, Facebook, X (Twitter), and Instagram. The court record on this case demonstrates plenty of examples of Biden officials doing just that, outsourcing censorship to a third party.
And that is why the Supreme Court must rule strongly against Biden officials and deliver a blow to the Deep State.
The ruling would remove one avenue that the administrative state uses to pursue policy without passing laws or implementing regulations.
Here is an example: the Left wants to see health “misinformation” suppressed, including questions about the efficacy of COVID jabs and face masks. But a federal law to outlaw health “misinformation” would have to work its way through Congress, then get signed, and then would likely face court challenges.
But when federal officials can ask X (Twitter) to remove posts from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and then the company provides VIP access to a portal to flag further posts about COVID jabs, the law is de facto implemented. Remember – the company only needs to remove enough high-profile tweets to diminish reach and send a message to other users – toe the establishment line or else we’ll shut down your account.
It is the same way Senator Elizabeth Warren can use her authority and threats to get Amazon to pull books critical of the mainstream narrative on COVID. She can rarely get her far-left ideas passed through the Senate, but that does not stop her influence.
Disturbingly, only three of the six center-right Supreme Court justices voted to block Biden’s censorship scheme while the case is heard and then decided. That leaves the censorship regime in place until potentially next June after Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, along with Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberals on the court, allowed a stay of the injunction.
But all three Republican-appointed justices should be supportive of blocking the censorship scheme, as all three have been critical of the administrative state and the creation of new regulations and laws that fall outside of the ordinary separation of powers.
Justice Kavanaugh has criticized the Chevron doctrine, which holds that government agencies should generally be deferred to when it comes to new regulations. In a bit of Supreme Court trivia, the doctrine came about during the Reagan administration as a result of a regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency, led at the time by Justice Gorsuch’s mother. Gorsuch opposes Chevron.
“I can confidently claim that Chevron encourages the Executive Branch (whichever party controls it) to be extremely aggressive in seeking to squeeze its policy goals into ill-fitting statutory authorizations and restraints,” Kavanaugh, the former White House attorney, wrote in 2016.
Allowing federal officials to nudge and push censorship of views disfavored by the current president is just one more way the administrative state works around our Constitutional order.
Chief Justice Roberts has also criticized Chevron and wrote the majority opinion in a case in 2022 that restricted the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing broad regulations without clear authority.
Justice Barrett is also a possible vote to rule in favor of Internet freedom. The New Civil Liberties Alliance said Barrett’s judicial record prior to her Supreme Court nomination “show[ed] a willingness to protect civil liberties from administrative power.”
The Biden administration has no strong justification for keeping its powers in place. It could not provide a specific example of potential communications that would be barred by the injunction, and by extension, a ruling against the White House. The federal government already has legitimate ways to seek warrants on actual national security and other criminal matters.
But it has no legitimate need to pressure YouTube to remove videos that question the integrity of aspects of the 2020 election or ask Instagram to remove an account making fun of Dr. Anthony Fauci.
The Deep State continues to run many aspects of the federal government – the Supreme Court can, and should, strike a blow to its power.