Biden administration files motion to stay

The Biden administration has now filed a motion to stay the injunction against their contacting social media organs.

Biden administration won’t leave it alone

The day after Judge Terry A. Doughty handed down a seven-day injunction against the government, the Biden administration appealed.

But they did not immediately file for a stay of the injunction. Now they have, as Tracy Beanz noted this morning.

In their Memorandum, the administration insisted that at least some plaintiffs lack standing and haven’t supported their First Amendment claims. In addition the Biden administration claims “ongoing harms to the Government” and a public interest. (The Memorandum refers to the case as Louisiana v. Biden, not Missouri v. Biden. That might or might not be significant. Though a Louisiana district court is trying the case, and Louisiana is a plaintiff, Missouri remains the lead plaintiff.)

The Memorandum calls the injunction “sweeping” and “vague,” and suggests that no “ordinary person reading the court’s order” can “ascertain from the document itself exactly what conduct is proscribed.” For the benefit of readers, CNAV offers the preliminary injunction here. Because the Memorandum referred to “an ordinary person,” no legal education, training or credentials are necessary to examine it. CNAV can “ascertain from the document itself exactly what conduct” it intends to forbid. Various government agencies and their members may not meet with social media staff to tell them to suppress protected speech. The injunction has a footnote saying what “protected speech” means and how to find out what speech enjoys such “protection.” And anyone wanting to know what conduct the injunction proscribes, can read the Memorandum Ruling.

The problem is not what the administration says

If the injunction poses any problem at all, then it is to the plaintiffs, not the defendants. The Biden administration, by their memorandum, seems to threaten to interpret their law-enforcement and “national security” authority broadly enough to permit them to do business as usual.

Furthermore the administration makes much of the year that has passed between the filing for the injunction and the ruling. But that ignores the counter-filing, motion to dismiss, and other delaying actions the government took. Absurdly, the Memorandum claims the conduct is a year old – but we know that this conduct continues today. The State Department was meeting regularly with social media staff as recently as Wednesday, when they canceled any further meetings.

The administration has asked for a ruling by July 10.

Thus far the only response to the motion to stay has been on Twitter itself, in reply to Tracy Beanz’ latest tweet. It varies from bemusement to sarcasm.