RFK Jr. Backs GOP Lawsuits Against Biden Administration over Social Media Censorship

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has voiced support for Republican-led lawsuits accusing the Biden administration of unlawfully coercing social media platforms to censor content.

The Hill reports that as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two high-stakes cases concerning social media censorship on Tuesday, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. weighed in, aligning himself with the Republican states of Louisiana and Missouri in their legal battle against the White House.

Kennedy, an independent candidate for the 2024 presidential election, contends that President Biden’s administration attempted to censor his own social media posts, echoing the central allegations raised by Louisiana and Missouri. In an interview with NewsNation’s Chris Cuomo, Kennedy asserted, “I don’t think the government should be involved. The social media sites are welcome to have programs or processes or community rules with a consensus, but once the government gets involved and the First Amendment is implicated, things get out of hand.”

The crux of the Supreme Court cases revolves around claims that the Biden White House illegally pressured social media companies to restrict accounts the government claimed were spreading misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic. The states of Louisiana and Missouri argue that such actions violated the First Amendment rights of those targeted for censorship.

Kennedy’s personal experience adds weight to the states’ arguments. In January 2021, his social media accounts were restricted after he posted misinformation claiming that baseball legend Hank Aaron died from complications of the COVID vaccine – a claim disputed by medical experts. Kennedy alleges that the White House instructed social media sites to restrict his accounts, leading him to file a separate lawsuit against the administration.

While Kennedy secured an injunction in his case last month, it was temporarily stayed pending the outcome of the Supreme Court hearings. The justices themselves appeared divided during Tuesday’s oral arguments, with both liberal and conservative members expressing concerns about the potential implications of the states’ positions.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, for instance, questioned whether the states’ view could “hamstring the government in significant ways in the most important time periods.” Conversely, other justices seemed sympathetic to the notion that the government overstepped its bounds by influencing content moderation decisions.

The cases originate from a Louisiana-based federal judge’s order last July, which initially barred Biden administration officials from communicating with social media companies about “the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction” of content containing “protected free speech.” While a three-judge panel on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed the original order in September, it agreed that administration officials likely violated the First Amendment by requesting the removal of specific content.

As the Supreme Court deliberates, the lower court rulings remain paused during the appeal process. The ultimate decision could have far-reaching implications for the boundaries of government involvement in online speech and the extent to which social media platforms can be influenced by political pressure.

Read more at the Hill here.

Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship.