Free Speech
On Independence Day this year, and he chose that day on purpose, Federal District Court Judge, Terry Doughty, issued an injunction in the case of Missouri v. Biden barring the Biden Administration from communicating with social media platforms. Several states, including Missouri, sued the federal government alleging the Administration violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by colluding with social media platforms to censor Americans’ speech. Judge Doughty stayed the effective date of the injunction to give the parties time to appeal to the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
Last week, the 5th Circuit heard the case. It did not seem to go well for the Administration. The Administration argued that federal agencies like the FBI and the CDC did not coerce social media companies into censoring. Rather, they argued, the government agencies just asked and the companies complied. Circuit Judge Jennifer Elrod saw through this argument noting, you mean like when mobsters say, “nice place you got here, it’d be a shame if anything happened to it?”
The 5th Circuit Court has yet to rule, but it looks like they will allow the injunction to take effect. The case will likely then head to the Supreme Court where you can expect similar treatment. The government clearly suppressed conservative speech in violation of the First Amendment by colluding with social media companies. As Judge Doughty said in his injunction, this is “the most important free speech case in American history.”
More free speech
Doubling down on their penchant for censorship, the Biden Administration this week filed a brief with the Supreme Court encouraging the Court to take up cases challenging the constitutionality of certain laws in Texas and Florida. Both Texas and Florida enacted statutes designed to prohibit social media companies from censoring content based on political bias. The social media platforms have sued both states. The 5th circuit Court of Appeals upheld the state laws. The social media companies have now requested the Supreme Court to take the cases. The Biden Administration is siding with the social media companies. They would like to keep doing what I described above.
Judicial restraint
Last week, the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held in Hopkins v. Hosemann that a Mississippi law disenfranchising felons violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In her majority opinion, Judge Corlyn Dineen King stated that “in the last fifty years, a national consensus has emerged among state legislatures against permanently disenfranchising those who have satisfied judicially imposed sentenced and repaid their debt to society.” So what?
Judges are not free to divine the “consensus” of the republic. Rather, Judges should be restrained by the text of the Constitution and statutes, and defer to legislatures on matters of public policy. This foundational tenant was pointed out by Judge Edith Jones in her dissent in Hopkins. She noted that section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically contemplates disenfranchisement. How can it be cruel and unusual if it is specifically authorized by the Constitution? Perhaps the Supreme Court will take this case and impose the proper judicial restraint.
Soft on crime
One of the clearest example of the consequences of the soft on crime trend that has swept the nation the last several years came to light this week in Los Angeles. A new law legalizing jaywalking took effect on January 1, 2023. The law was passed in the name of “equity.” Proponents argued that the jaywalking ban encouraged disproportionate minority-police contact. Since January, though, LA has had 26 pedestrians killed by motor vehicles, with 19 of the pedestrians specifically jaywalking. This is the highest rate of pedestrian-vehicle deaths in LA in decades, and we are only halfway through the year. See how that works? This simple cause and effect scenario can be applied to the soft on crime policies implemented throughout the criminal code in many states in the last few years, including Indiana.