🔴 Website 👉 https://u-s-news.com/
Telegram 👉 https://t.me/usnewscom_channel
Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) on Tuesday announced a “historic First Amendment victory” in a case brought against the Biden administration when he was Missouri’s attorney general.
“We just won Missouri v. Biden. As Missouri’s Attorney General, I sued the Biden regime for brazenly colluding with Big Tech to silence Missouri families — censoring the truth about COVID, the Hunter Biden laptop, the open border, and the 2020 election. They tried to turn Facebook, X, YouTube, and the rest into their private speech police, labeling dissent ‘misinformation’ while they pushed their narrative on the American people,” Schmitt explained.
“Today, after years of unrelenting litigation, we deep state into a historic 10-year, court-enforceable Consent Decree. It directly binds the Surgeon General, the CDC, and CISA: no more threats of legal, regulatory, or economic punishment. No more coercion. No more unilateral direction or veto of platform decisions to remove, suppress, deplatform, or algorithmically bury protected speech. Missouri struck first—and Missouri won big,” Schmitt continued.
“This is the first real, operational restraint on the federal censorship machine. It locks in the First Amendment principle we fought for: modern technology doesn’t erase your rights, and government labels don’t strip speech of protection. The deep state just got checked. For every working Missouri family tired of being silenced by their own government: this victory is yours. The heartland fought back, and the heartland delivered,” he added.
We just won Missouri v. Biden.
As Missouri’s Attorney General, I sued the Biden regime for brazenly colluding with Big Tech to silence Missouri families — censoring the truth about COVID, the Hunter Biden laptop, the open border, and the 2020 election. They tried to turn… pic.twitter.com/90BYFNf59p
— Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) March 24, 2026
Schmitt explained further in a press release:
- Schmitt filed Missouri v. Biden in 2022 when he was serving as Missouri’s Attorney General, alleging a “vast censorship enterprise” between the federal government and social media companies to censor speech online.
- As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, Schmitt frequently discusses the Biden Administration’s pervasive efforts to deplatform users they disagreed with and pressure social media companies to remove content.
- Schmitt introduced the COLLUDE Act, which would strip Section 230 protections from social media companies that censor speech at the behest of government actors.
- Schmitt also introduced the Censorship Accountability Act, which would allow private citizens to sue federal government officials if they censor their speech online.
“Huzzah! The consent decree in Missouri v. Biden is a historic victory for free speech in the US. Though I had to switch to the government side in the case after I became NIH director, I’ve never been more pleased by ‘losing’ in my life. A huge win for all Americans,” NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya commented.
Huzzah! The consent decree in Missouri v. Biden is a historic victory for free speech in the US. Though I had to switch to the government side in the case after I became NIH director, I’ve never been more pleased by “losing” in my life. A huge win for all Americans. https://t.co/wIZ4xvNZzo
— Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) March 24, 2026
The New Civil Liberties Alliance stated:
The New Civil Liberties Alliance, on behalf of its clients Jill Hines and Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, has reached a settlement agreement and Consent Decree concluding the landmark Missouri v. Biden lawsuit against government-induced social media censorship. This is the same case that previously went to the U.S. Supreme Court as Murthy v. Missouri when the Biden Administration appealed a Preliminary Injunction that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit awarded NCLA’s clients. The Consent Decree awaits final court approval by Judge Terry Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, along with the attorneys’ fees.
The unprecedented settlement prohibits the U.S. Surgeon General, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) from threatening social media companies into removing or suppressing constitutionally protected speech on Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), LinkedIn and YouTube. It also bars these government authorities from directing or vetoing the companies’ social media content moderation choices. Representing individual plaintiffs in this lawsuit who were censored on social media as part of the Biden Administration’s “whole of government” effort to oppose speech it disliked, NCLA celebrates this milestone victory for First Amendment free speech rights.
In June 2024, the Supreme Court vacated the Preliminary Injunction in this case that barred many government officials from coercing and significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech. The Supreme Court wrongly held that Ms. Hines and Dr. Kheriaty—as well as then-NCLA clients Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff who had to withdraw from this case upon joining the Trump Administration—lacked standing to support a preliminary injunction. However, NCLA returned to district court and continued fighting efforts to dismiss the case after the Supreme Court’s ruling. Discovery in this case uncovered a vast operation emanating from the highest levels of government. NCLA revealed how agencies and the White House directed social media companies to censor viewpoints that conflicted with federal government messaging on topics ranging from Covid-19 to elections. These egregious First Amendment violations silenced NCLA’s clients and many other Americans.
The Trump Administration condemned this censorship scheme in an Executive Order on President Trump’s first day back in office last year. He noted that the “government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.” In today’s settlement, the Trump Administration agrees that government, politicians, media, academics, or anyone else labeling speech “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malinformation” does not make it constitutionally unprotected. People are bound to make false statements now and then when they speak their minds, a freedom the First Amendment guarantees. This settlement helps safeguard that marketplace of ideas from the federal government. NCLA’s clients, Jill Hines and Aaron Kheriaty, are granted the right to enforce the Consent Decree should the government violate it.