A federal judge ruled Tuesday Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. can sue the Biden administration over alleged social media censorship of his Children’s Health Defense charity, which questions the safety of vaccines.
‘The Court finds that Kennedy is likely to succeed on his claim that suppression of content posted was caused by actions of Government Defendants, and there is a substantial risk that he will suffer similar injury in the near future,’ U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty in Louisiana said in a ruling.
The lawsuit alleges the government had pressured social media giants like Facebook, X and YouTube to censor content it considered misinformation.
The Children’s Health Defense, which was founded by Kennedy, says its mission is ‘ending childhood health epidemics by eliminating toxic exposure.’
Critics of the charity have called it ‘anti-vaccine.’ The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said that vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccine, are ‘safe and effective.’
‘Judge Terry Doughty carefully and clearly analyzed the law and facts and applied the framework from the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Murthy v. Missouri regarding standing,’ CHD general counsel Kim Rosenberg said after the ruling, referring to a similar case brought against the government.
‘The court also firmly found in plaintiffs’ favor that plaintiffs had not waived — and indeed had affirmatively raised — direct censorship claims in addition to listener claims.’
Murthy v. Missouri was recently brought by the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, who accused the Biden administration of pressuring social media companies to censor certain content.
A Louisiana court banned communication between the government and the companies, but the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision in June, said the plaintiffs had insufficient evidence to prove direct injury and found no direct link to the government in the censorship, adding companies have a right to moderate their own content.
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the decision that ‘the evidence indicates that the platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment.’
Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Brett Kavanaugh, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson also voted against the plaintiffs.
In the Kennedy case, Doughty said there was direct evidence the charity’s censorship had been linked to the government.
The case will now go back to a lower court, and the injunction will be reviewed, according to the Washington Examiner.
The decision came just days before Kennedy suspended his struggling presidential campaign and endorsed former President Trump.
A federal judge ruled Tuesday Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. can sue the Biden administration over alleged social media censorship of his Children’s Health Defense charity, which questions the safety of vaccines.
‘The Court finds that Kennedy is likely to succeed on his claim that suppression of content posted was caused by actions of Government Defendants, and there is a substantial risk that he will suffer similar injury in the near future,’ U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty in Louisiana said in a ruling.
The lawsuit alleges the government had pressured social media giants like Facebook, X and YouTube to censor content it considered misinformation.
The Children’s Health Defense, which was founded by Kennedy, says its mission is ‘ending childhood health epidemics by eliminating toxic exposure.’
Critics of the charity have called it ‘anti-vaccine.’ The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said that vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccine, are ‘safe and effective.’
‘Judge Terry Doughty carefully and clearly analyzed the law and facts and applied the framework from the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Murthy v. Missouri regarding standing,’ CHD general counsel Kim Rosenberg said after the ruling, referring to a similar case brought against the government.
‘The court also firmly found in plaintiffs’ favor that plaintiffs had not waived — and indeed had affirmatively raised — direct censorship claims in addition to listener claims.’
Murthy v. Missouri was recently brought by the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, who accused the Biden administration of pressuring social media companies to censor certain content.
A Louisiana court banned communication between the government and the companies, but the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision in June, said the plaintiffs had insufficient evidence to prove direct injury and found no direct link to the government in the censorship, adding companies have a right to moderate their own content.
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the decision that ‘the evidence indicates that the platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment.’
Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Brett Kavanaugh, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson also voted against the plaintiffs.
In the Kennedy case, Doughty said there was direct evidence the charity’s censorship had been linked to the government.
The case will now go back to a lower court, and the injunction will be reviewed, according to the Washington Examiner.
The decision came just days before Kennedy suspended his struggling presidential campaign and endorsed former President Trump.
