An appeals court has ruled that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media platforms to censor critics of COVID-19 policies. The ruling comes as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees NIH, faces a lawsuit alleging the agency’s actions suppressed free speech.
The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on August 21, 2024, underscores the growing legal challenges federal agencies face over their role in online censorship. The case stems from the Biden administration's broader efforts to combat misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the court found that the NIH's actions, including emails and meetings with social media companies, crossed a constitutional line by encouraging or coercing platforms to silence dissenting voices.
Former NIH Senior Advisor, Carrie Wolinetz, says that no censorship occurred during the COVID pandemic.
These people lie without remorse.
Never forget what they’ve done. pic.twitter.com/Fz7S3nsUZ3
— Died Suddenly (@DiedSuddenly_) August 21, 2024
The case began in 2022 when several plaintiffs, including medical professionals and conservative media organizations, sued HHS, claiming that federal officials pressured social media companies to remove posts and ban users who criticized COVID-19 vaccines, mandates, and other public health measures. The plaintiffs argued that the NIH and other agencies effectively transformed private companies into government censors, infringing on the First Amendment rights of Americans.
In its ruling, the Fifth Circuit panel noted that while the government can communicate with private companies about public concerns, it cannot coerce or significantly encourage them to suppress speech. The court found that the NIH, through a series of emails and meetings, exerted undue influence on social media platforms to silence critics. The panel emphasized that this type of coercion or encouragement is unconstitutional, as it essentially turns private companies into state actors.
NIH censorship of critics unconstitutional, appeals court says, HHS sued for COVID coverup records https://t.co/DiP7vrm3Gb
— Just the News (@JustTheNews) August 22, 2024
This ruling aligns with a growing body of legal decisions scrutinizing the relationship between federal agencies and social media companies. In a similar case, Missouri v. Biden, a federal judge recently issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Biden administration from continuing to pressure tech companies to censor online content. That case, like the NIH lawsuit, involves claims that the government violated the First Amendment by coercing private companies to limit speech on their platforms.
The NIH ruling has significant implications for how federal agencies interact with social media companies moving forward. Legal experts suggest the decision could restrict government efforts to combat misinformation online, particularly when it comes to public health. Critics of the ruling argue that it hampers the government’s ability to address harmful misinformation during public health emergencies, which they claim is necessary to protect public safety.
However, free speech advocates celebrated the ruling as a victory for the First Amendment. They argue that the government’s actions during the pandemic set a dangerous precedent, allowing federal agencies to stifle dissent under the guise of combating misinformation. The NIH ruling, they say, restores the balance between protecting public health and preserving free speech.
HHS has not yet announced whether it will appeal the Fifth Circuit’s decision. In a statement, an HHS spokesperson said the agency is "reviewing the court’s opinion and considering all options moving forward." The spokesperson also defended the NIH’s actions, claiming that the agency’s efforts were aimed at protecting public health by ensuring accurate information was available to the public.
Good ruling, and so, what are the consequences for those who unlawfully censored? Right. Nothing.