Biden-Era Lawsuit Finally Resolved — BIG Win For Free Speech On Social Media

The first domino fell when Elon released the Twitter Files, exposing the anti-Constitutional political interference in Social Media posts that found its origin in Biden’s White House. With the lawsuit now resolved, we have biding legal precedent.

When Hillary got unexpectedly curb-stomped in the 2016 election results, the left made a decision to destroy the advantage the political right had developed through the innovative use of blogs, social networking and New Media news options. (It also includes a detailed plan to nuke the right-wing blogosphere, coordinate in the dirtying up of Trump’s name and mobilize impeachment efforts even before he had taken office.)

After initial success there, the left got busy working the refs in left-leaning Silicon Valley, manipulating TOS to squeeze the life out of politically incorrect ideas on all of the social media platforms. Alex Jones was the test case they floated before completely pulling the plug on a sitting POTUS.

History shows us that deep state actors like Little Lord Fauci were leading the charge in working those refs, using the ‘misinformation’ excuse to silence dissenting voices of not just the general public, but dissenting doctors whose objections to official policy was eventually proven correct. They had almost accomplished this goal until Elon Musk used his personal fortune to buy Twitter and open up the records to public scrutiny.

Suddenly all of the backroom deals that had been conducted in secret were now out in the open. That was a MASSIVE First Amendment violation and led to Missouri’s AG opening a lawsuit against the Biden administration. That lawsuit has finally come to a resolution in which the government agreed to a settlement.

Here’s what Eric Schmit posted with a link to the ruling:

We just won Missouri v. Biden.

As Missouri’s Attorney General, I sued the Biden regime for brazenly colluding with Big Tech to silence Missouri families — censoring the truth about COVID, the Hunter Biden laptop, the open border, and the 2020 election. They tried to turn Facebook, X, YouTube, and the rest into their private speech police, labeling dissent “misinformation” while they pushed their narrative on the American people.

Today, after years of unrelenting litigation, we deep state into a historic 10-year, court-enforceable Consent Decree. It directly binds the Surgeon General, the CDC, and CISA: no more threats of legal, regulatory, or economic punishment. No more coercion. No more unilateral direction or veto of platform decisions to remove, suppress, deplatform, or algorithmically bury protected speech.

Missouri struck first—and Missouri won big.

This is the first real, operational restraint on the federal censorship machine. It locks in the First Amendment principle we fought for: modern technology doesn’t erase your rights, and government labels don’t strip speech of protection. The deep state just got checked.

For every working Missouri family tired of being silenced by their own government: this victory is yours. The heartland fought back, and the heartland delivered.

As part of the court ruling itself we see the introduction which enters into judicial precedent the following damning statement about Biden era abuses of authority…

As President Trump stated upon taking office on January 20, 2025, “[o]ver the last 4 years, the

previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online

platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media

companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did

not approve.” Executive Order 14149, “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal

Censorship,” on January 20, 2025. See 90 Fed. Reg. 8,243 (Jan. 20, 2025). “Under the guise of

combatting ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘malinformation,’ the Federal Government

infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States

in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public

debate.” Id. To prevent such censorship from recurring, Plaintiffs and Defendants agree to the terms

set forth below, to be enforced upon approval by the Court, for a period of 10 years.

Besides some statements about the general applications of the First Amendment across all technology and time that OUGHT to have been self-evident to anyone respecting both the letter and the spirit of the law, we see the resolutions stemming from this case that both parties have agreed to abide by…

The Parties also agree that government, politicians, media, academics, or anyone else applying labels such as “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or “malinformation” to speech does not render it constitutionally unprotected. See United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 718 (2012) (plurality op.) (“Absent from those few categories where the law allows content-based regulation of speech is any general exception to the First Amendment for false statements. This comports with the common understanding that some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views in public and private conversation, expression the First Amendment seeks to guarantee.”).

For these reasons, the Government cannot take actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly—except as authorized by law—to threaten Social-Media Companies with some form of punishment (i.e., an adverse legal, regulatory, or economic government sanction) unless they remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech.

The Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) (“Enjoined Defendants”), and their employees and agents, shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly—except as authorized by the Constitution, statute, judicial order, or regulation—to threaten Social-Media Companies with some form of punishment (i.e., an adverse legal, regulatory, or economic government sanction) unless they remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech. Nor shall Enjoined Defendants unilaterally direct or veto social media content moderation decisions of Social Media Companies.

Why do we even NEED such an injunction? Because even AFTER the Twitter Files and the unlawful suppression of disfavoured speech had been made public, the Biden Administration was STILL looking for ways to covertly insert THIS clown into the administration so that she could ‘fight misinformation and disinformation’.

Does everybody remember Scary Poppins? https://t.co/wQozNWTyiw

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) January 10, 2026

Now, there is no excuse. There is an explicit judicial ruling blocking such action. If anyone is found to be in violation, citizens impacted by it will have a path to pursue a ‘Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law‘ action against those responsible.