Judge's ruling a ‘stunning rebuke’ of the Biden admin: John Ratcliffe
Former director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe reacts to a judge ruling the White House most likely violated the First Amendment during COVID-19 on ‘America’s Newsroom.’
A federal judge is being applauded for a surprise July 4 ruling stating the Biden administration likely violated the First Amendment during the COVID-19 pandemic.
U.S. District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty ordered an injunction on Independence Day to prevent White House officials and federal agencies from meeting with tech companies about social media censorship, arguing past actions likely violated the Constitution.
"I think that language reflects that this was a stunning rebuke, but also an appropriate one," former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe told "America's Newsroom" Wednesday.
The holiday injunction was in response to recent lawsuits from Louisiana and Missouri attorneys general. The suits allege that the White House coerced or "significantly encourage[d]" tech companies to suppress free speech during the COVID-19 pandemic.
BIDEN LIKELY VIOLATED FIRST AMENDMENT DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, FEDERAL JUDGE SAYS
Former WH press secretary Jen Psaki was named by a judge in a ruling on the Biden administration and efforts to combat COVID-19 misinformation. ((Left:REUTERS/Leah Millis, Right:REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/File Photo))
Several federal officials and agencies – including some of Biden's Cabinet members and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre – have been barred from contacting social media companies in efforts to suppress speech.
The injunction, which was obtained by Fox News, states that the government's actions "likely violate the Free Speech Clause" and that the court "is not persuaded by Defendants’ arguments," dealing a significant blow to the White House.
"I read this opinion yesterday, I couldn't stop saying thank you. Finally," OutKick founder Travis said on "Fox & Friends" Wednesday. "This is going to be incredibly difficult for the Biden administration to overturn."
"It's unbelievable the amount of information, and the discovery that we were able to obtain through this particular case should concern all Americans, irrespective of their political ideology, their party affiliation," Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry remarked earlier on the show.
"The judge basically spells it out. He does it in this great 120-page opinion. He takes things step by step. He says, look, the government went out there and censored America's speech on COVID-19, on vaccine policies, on mask mandates, on election questions, in the Hunter Biden laptop."
"This is a completely direct violation of the First Amendment."
EX-BIDEN AIDE TO JEN PSAKI HIT FOR COERCING TECH COMPANIES TO CENSOR CONSERVATIVES BY FEDERAL JUDGE
"During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth,’" Doughty wrote.
"If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history," the injunction adds. "In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech."
The injunction also claims that "the censorship alleged in this case almost exclusively targeted conservative speech," but that issues the case raises are "beyond party lines."
"Viewpoint discrimination is an especially egregious form of content discrimination," Doughty argued. "The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction."
BIDEN ADMINISTRATION PUSHING TO MAKE AI WOKE, ADHERE TO FAR-LEFT AGENDA: WATCHDOG
The cases could mean that interactions between tech companies and government officials may be significantly limited in the future. Exceptions might include national security threats or criminal matters on social media.
Fox News Digital reached out to the White House, Google, Meta and Twitter for statements, but has not heard back. The Department of Justice declined to comment.
Some critics have challenged the ruling, with a Washington Post article warning the judge's decision could "upend years of efforts to enhance coordination between the government and social media companies."
Ratcliffe agreed with the sentiment but argued the judge is not the one to blame.
"The problem is in this case that the years of good work have been upended by social media executives and government officials who have abused that and the examples that we've just talked about. It's ironic because The Washington Post is actually a coconspirator in that. It was the mainstream media, ironically, that was complicit in this abuse of the First Amendment and suppressing Americans' free speech. So they did it to themselves that that's the problem."
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
"My take is that this is going to hold up on appeal, because everything that the plaintiffs in this case allege has been proven largely to be true," Ratcliffe argued. "When you think about, with respect to COVID-19, everything from the origins of the lab leak, the efficacy of certain treatments, the transmissibility. You just heard President Biden talking about pandemic of the unvaccinated. All of that was frankly, wrong, and yet Americans ability to engage in honest debate about it was suppressed. And so you have these agencies with social media working to suppress the truth and amplify lies."
"As the judge says, I truly do believe this is the greatest infringement on our First Amendment rights that any of us have seen occur in any of our lives. It cannot be allowed. And we're finally getting judges pushing back," Travis said.
Fox News' Andrea Vacchiano contributed to this report.