Thread by @akheriaty

1/ BREAKING: Important update in our Missouri v. Biden case. The judge denied government defendants' motion to dismiss the case (except for claims against President, which are generally disfavored by the court). Upshot: the case will now move to trial.

2/ The court ruled that, contrary to the government's claims, we the plaintiffs (both the states of MO and LA and the private plaintiffs) have standing to bring the case: "The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied Article III’s standing requirements."

3/ The court ruled, "Because Plaintiffs have adequately alleged injury-in-fact, traceability, and redressability, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED on the grounds of Article III standing."

4/ As to the government's claim of sovereign immunity, the court found, "Sovereign Immunity does not bar Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims... Defendants have ignored the basic principle that parties may seek to enjoin federal officials from violating the Constitution."

5/ In other words, the judge reminded the federal government that the U.S. Constitution remains the highest law of the land. Who would have thought?

6/ Furthermore, the ruling explained, "parties are entitled to sue for injunctive relief against federal officials in their official capacity for actions beyond their statutory authority." For these reasons, "Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED on sovereign immunity grounds."

7/ Regarding the merits of our Complaint, "the Court finds that Plaintiffs have stated plausible claims on the merits in all counts of the Complaint."

8/ Crucially, "The Court finds that the Complaint alleges significant encouragement and coercion that converts the otherwise private conduct of censorship on social-media platforms into state action, and is unpersuaded by Defendants’ arguments to the contrary."

9/ "Further, while the Government may certainly select the messages it wishes to convey, this freedom is limited by the more fundamental principle that a government entity may not employ threats to limit the free speech of private citizens."

10/ "Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged state action under the theory of significant encouragement and/or coercion."

11/ "Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged joint action, entwinement, and/or that specific features of Defendants’ actions combined to create state action."

12/ "Combined with other factors such as the coercive statements and significant entwinement of federal officials and censorship decisions on social-media platforms... this serves as another basis for finding government action."

13/ "Because the Complaint alleges state action, Plaintiffs plausibly state a claim for violation of the 1st Amend. via government-induced censorship... Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged prior restraints and viewpoint discrimination, which are clear violations of the 1st Amend."

14/ The court explains, "The First Amendment, subject only to narrow and well-understood exceptions, does not countenance governmental control over the content of messages expressed by private individuals."

15/ The court found, "Plaintiffs have clearly and plausibly alleged that Defendants engaged in viewpoint discrimination and prior restraints."

16/ In conclusion, the judge ruled, "Because Plaintiffs have adequately alleged each claim in the Complaint, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds."

17/ In summary, the court accepted virtually all of our arguments in the case and rejected virtually all of the government's counter-arguments.

As the case now moves to trial it is increasingly clear that this will be the most important free speech case of our generation.

@threadreaderapp unroll