Columbus, OH – On Friday, The Buckeye Institute filed its third amicus brief in Murthy v. Missouri (previously Missouri v. Biden), calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the preliminary injunction and stop the federal government from “jawboning” social media companies to censor viewpoints the government does not agree with. 

“The district court found that the executive branch essentially commandeered private actors to censor speech the government disagreed with,” said Jay R. Carson, senior litigator at The Buckeye Institute. “The First Amendment stands as a bulwark against the government’s position that it can squelch public discourse, whether through direct influence or less obvious methods such as ‘jawboning.’”  

Censorship by proxy has a history of bipartisan abuse, with governments using it to silence people and organizations espousing politically unpopular ideas. In this brief, The Buckeye Institute highlights several examples going back to World War II, when the federal government provided the American public with “facts” only to find later that the government’s initial assertion was wrong. 

The Buckeye Institute filed its first amicus brief in the case on April 18, 2023. Buckeye filed its second amicus brief in Missouri v. Biden on August 7, 2023. In National Rifle Association v. Vullo, Buckeye called on the U.S. Supreme Court to stop government officials in New York from threatening, or “jawboning,” businesses that the state regulates from working with the National Rifle Association. In O’Handley v. Weber—a free speech case out of California—Buckeye called on the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the state of California from “jawboning” social media companies to censor viewpoints the government does not agree with.

Murthy v. Missouri is a New Civil Liberties Alliance case. 

# # #

UPDATE: On June 26, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant.”