1 00:00:16,600 --> 00:00:20,440 And we're back with another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle's 2 00:00:20,480 --> 00:00:27,079 senior elections correspondent at The Federalist and your experienced Shirpa on today's Quest for Knowledge. 3 00:00:27,559 --> 00:00:32,039 As always, you can email the show at radio at the Federalist dot 4 00:00:32,079 --> 00:00:38,840 com, follow us on x at FDR LST, make sure to subscribe wherever 5 00:00:38,880 --> 00:00:43,039 you download your podcast, and of course to the premium version of our website 6 00:00:43,079 --> 00:00:49,320 as well. I'm joined today by Janine Unis. She is legal Litigation council 7 00:00:49,520 --> 00:00:56,479 for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, the organization that represented the private plaintiffs in 8 00:00:56,600 --> 00:01:02,240 the jaw Boning case jaw dropping case, at least as far as the ruling 9 00:01:02,359 --> 00:01:07,319 is concerned, Murphy versus Missouri. He joins us now to talk about the 10 00:01:07,359 --> 00:01:12,719 Supreme Court ruling and what it means for free speech in big tech dominated America. 11 00:01:14,359 --> 00:01:17,840 Janine, thanks so much for joining us on the Federalist Radio Hour. 12 00:01:18,280 --> 00:01:23,000 Thank you so much for having me. First of all, this was stunning 13 00:01:23,079 --> 00:01:26,840 to me as a journalist, a long time journalist, longer than I would 14 00:01:26,920 --> 00:01:34,359 like to acknowledge in this podcast, as someone who has made his living off 15 00:01:34,400 --> 00:01:42,239 of the First Amendment, this to me seems like a direct assault on the 16 00:01:42,239 --> 00:01:51,120 First Amendment free speech, those first primary rights that most of us just take 17 00:01:51,200 --> 00:01:55,760 for granted. But what was surprising to me as well, as this was 18 00:01:55,840 --> 00:02:01,920 decided in a six' to three majority decision based on standing. Before we 19 00:02:01,959 --> 00:02:07,240 get there, let's talk about this case and what it ultimately is all about 20 00:02:07,400 --> 00:02:14,639 for those who have not closely followed it. Berthy versus Missouri, of course, 21 00:02:14,759 --> 00:02:20,719 is all about what I like to consider the deep state, big government 22 00:02:21,000 --> 00:02:30,400 getting involved meddling into you know, big tech social network platform so to speak. 23 00:02:30,080 --> 00:02:36,000 More than anything, they are content providers, Let's be clear on that. 24 00:02:36,639 --> 00:02:40,000 But of course, during twenty twenty, the election, the COVID era, 25 00:02:40,319 --> 00:02:50,159 all kinds of blocking of valuable and what turned out to be true factual 26 00:02:50,199 --> 00:02:59,000 information regarding COVID restrictions and you know, election critical election information. The court 27 00:02:59,120 --> 00:03:05,360 ruling today says that the plaintiffs in the case have no standing, even as 28 00:03:05,479 --> 00:03:10,159 they did acknowledge that there clearly could be some abuses here with the federal government 29 00:03:10,240 --> 00:03:17,319 working hand in hand with big tech. What was your first response as a 30 00:03:17,439 --> 00:03:23,599 litigator in this case. Well, so, I wasn't particularly surprised after watching 31 00:03:23,639 --> 00:03:27,319 the argument. In fact, I sort of thought that they were going to 32 00:03:27,599 --> 00:03:31,639 duck the merits question and do away with it on standing. In a way, 33 00:03:31,680 --> 00:03:38,159 I was a little bit pleasantly surprised, which might sound counterintuitive, but 34 00:03:38,280 --> 00:03:39,800 I was worried based on when I saw the argument that they were going to 35 00:03:39,800 --> 00:03:43,240 say the government can do this, and I think that would have been more 36 00:03:43,280 --> 00:03:46,960 devastating for the First Amendment. This poses a lot of problems because it makes 37 00:03:46,960 --> 00:03:52,080 it very difficult to bring a case. So I think Justice Alito had a 38 00:03:52,159 --> 00:03:55,199 very good line in his dissent where he said, if a course of campaign 39 00:03:55,240 --> 00:03:59,080 is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by, And I sort 40 00:03:59,120 --> 00:04:02,400 of think that's what the Court has greenlighted today. Yeah, so we're going 41 00:04:02,400 --> 00:04:10,639 to get to I think a stinging rebuke by Justice Alido of the majority in 42 00:04:10,680 --> 00:04:17,959 this case momentarily, But how does the Supreme Court, the majority argue that 43 00:04:18,160 --> 00:04:24,439 the plaintiffs that you represent in particular, have no standing in this case. 44 00:04:25,160 --> 00:04:30,600 So basically what they say is that because our plaintiffs can't produce evidence that they 45 00:04:30,680 --> 00:04:34,240 were censored they specifically were censored because of the government, they don't have standing. 46 00:04:34,879 --> 00:04:38,720 They can show that they were censored on the sort of topics that the 47 00:04:38,759 --> 00:04:43,920 government was demanding censorship about, but they were never mentioned in an email, 48 00:04:44,000 --> 00:04:46,720 for instance, and I was worried that the court was going to do that. 49 00:04:46,759 --> 00:04:49,879 I actually had a similar case before this one called ching Gheezi versus HHS, 50 00:04:50,439 --> 00:04:55,120 which wound up in the Sixth Circuit, and that we were dismissed on 51 00:04:55,160 --> 00:05:00,240 that basis. And actually the Missouri and Louisiana who originally brought the suit asked 52 00:05:00,279 --> 00:05:04,720 made to join and represent private plaintiffs because I brought that lawsuit which raised you 53 00:05:04,720 --> 00:05:08,639 know, sort of based on similar premises. So they knew that I was 54 00:05:08,680 --> 00:05:14,399 familiar with the legal arguments and that I believed very strongly in the merits. 55 00:05:14,920 --> 00:05:20,920 So I mean, it's a big problem for the First Amendment. Another thing 56 00:05:20,959 --> 00:05:25,480 to note is that this was in the context of a preliminary injunction, which 57 00:05:25,480 --> 00:05:29,920 is emergency relief. So they also said that, you know, the plaintiffs 58 00:05:29,959 --> 00:05:32,480 couln't show that they would suffer future harm, which is one of the factors 59 00:05:32,519 --> 00:05:38,399 that you look at when issuing a preliminary injunction, that perhaps won't be a 60 00:05:38,480 --> 00:05:41,600 problem when we get to the merit stage, when we go back to the 61 00:05:41,639 --> 00:05:46,079 district court to pursue the case on the merits. Well, it's interesting to 62 00:05:46,120 --> 00:05:51,160 me to say that they can't prove future harm. I think we can take 63 00:05:51,160 --> 00:05:56,399 a look at the future by what has happened in the past. In her 64 00:05:56,480 --> 00:06:01,279 majority opinion, as my colleague at the Federalist Shawn Fleetwood rites Cony Barrett, 65 00:06:01,519 --> 00:06:09,160 Justice Amy Cony Barrett wrote that at this stage of litigation, plaintiffs have quote 66 00:06:09,199 --> 00:06:13,560 not established standing to seek an injunction, as you note, against the named 67 00:06:13,639 --> 00:06:18,519 federal agencies, and that is such, the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to reach 68 00:06:18,639 --> 00:06:23,439 the merits of dispute. She goes on to write, the plaintiffs, without 69 00:06:23,480 --> 00:06:29,839 any concrete link between their injuries and the defendant's conduct, ask us to conduct 70 00:06:29,879 --> 00:06:34,839 a review of the year's long communications between dozens of federal officials across different agencies 71 00:06:35,240 --> 00:06:42,639 with different social media platforms about different topics. This court standing doctrine prevents us 72 00:06:42,680 --> 00:06:48,959 from exercising such general legal oversight of the other branches of government. We therefore 73 00:06:49,040 --> 00:06:55,759 reverse the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent 74 00:06:56,399 --> 00:07:00,680 with this opinion. As you note, we had a District Court ruling on 75 00:07:00,759 --> 00:07:03,360 the fourth of July last year that said, you know, this appears to 76 00:07:03,399 --> 00:07:09,920 be among the more egregious assaults in the first Amendment that we've seen. We 77 00:07:09,959 --> 00:07:12,240 had a Fifth Circuit that said, yes, we agree with you, but 78 00:07:12,240 --> 00:07:16,439 we're going to rain this decision in just a bit to a handful of affecting 79 00:07:16,480 --> 00:07:23,920 a handful of government agencies. But again, for those who have followed this 80 00:07:24,120 --> 00:07:30,439 case, it is I think the word is galling to suggest that nobody was 81 00:07:30,600 --> 00:07:35,079 hurt in this case. The American public in general was hurt in this case, 82 00:07:35,360 --> 00:07:38,800 right, well, sort of to play devil's advocate, and obviously I 83 00:07:38,839 --> 00:07:43,160 agree with her with you, but I guess she's saying, you can't show 84 00:07:43,199 --> 00:07:46,000 that you were hurt because of the government. You might have been hurt because 85 00:07:46,000 --> 00:07:49,360 of the platforms, but they did have their own content moderation policies. They 86 00:07:49,399 --> 00:07:55,920 were censoring people. But this was also based on some factual errors. And 87 00:07:55,959 --> 00:07:59,160 as you noted in the portion that you read, she basically said, we 88 00:07:59,199 --> 00:08:01,160 didn't conduct the review of the record that the Distort Court did. The Distort 89 00:08:01,199 --> 00:08:05,360 Court really got into the facts, it really understood it. This is a 90 00:08:05,480 --> 00:08:11,680 very very voluminous record that shows dozens of agencies, probably close to it at 91 00:08:11,720 --> 00:08:15,000 this point, close to one hundred federal officials that we know of, who 92 00:08:15,040 --> 00:08:22,040 were colluding with coercing, pressuring, influencing the companies to effectuate their censorship desires 93 00:08:22,199 --> 00:08:30,480 essentially. So I and you know, when I read the way they recounted 94 00:08:30,480 --> 00:08:31,960 the facts, I thought, Okay, it sounds like they read the government's 95 00:08:31,960 --> 00:08:37,240 brief and just believed everything they said. And you know, I don't think 96 00:08:37,240 --> 00:08:41,279 that the government portrayed the facts accurately. There were numerous occasions on which the 97 00:08:41,320 --> 00:08:46,440 platforms and the majority got this wrong. I think the platforms said, basically, 98 00:08:46,440 --> 00:08:50,080 we're going to censor more people, We're going to interpret our policies more 99 00:08:50,120 --> 00:08:54,159 broadly, or we're going to change our policies because we're under pressure from the 100 00:08:54,200 --> 00:08:58,600 government, especially the White House, but federal agencies as well well. I 101 00:08:58,639 --> 00:09:01,879 must tell you it makes me worried about the Chevron case up if they're so 102 00:09:03,000 --> 00:09:07,240 easily going to defer to the experts of the government, and that's what the 103 00:09:07,320 --> 00:09:11,000 Chevron case is really all about, is reigning in the government experts, so 104 00:09:11,120 --> 00:09:16,080 to speak, and not believing what the experts have told us, And really, 105 00:09:16,639 --> 00:09:20,000 isn't that, Janine. At the core of this case is that we 106 00:09:20,000 --> 00:09:28,799 were told by the government experts. The government experts told the social media outlets, 107 00:09:28,879 --> 00:09:33,279 the content providers in social media what to do, what not to do, 108 00:09:33,519 --> 00:09:37,039 social media outlets in so many cases followed along. I mean, this 109 00:09:37,679 --> 00:09:48,320 really is the core issue behind believing the experts during COVID and the elections and 110 00:09:48,399 --> 00:09:52,399 the lockdowns and all kinds of different issues. That's right, Although I wouldn't 111 00:09:52,399 --> 00:09:56,919 be as worried about the Chevron case because that argument went much better for the 112 00:09:56,960 --> 00:10:01,679 plaintiffs, which by the way, represents some of those too, so more 113 00:10:01,080 --> 00:10:05,240 anticipating that decision. Yeah, and for full disclosure, your office, your 114 00:10:05,360 --> 00:10:11,679 organization also represents the Federalist in a particular case as well, so we should 115 00:10:11,759 --> 00:10:16,360 note that. Right, we'll talk about your organization in the many different areas 116 00:10:16,399 --> 00:10:22,799 of liberty issues that you're dealing with. But obviously the stunning case for the 117 00:10:22,840 --> 00:10:28,240 First Amendment is this. But no, again, speaking to the core issue 118 00:10:28,279 --> 00:10:33,480 here is that now the government seems to get a free pass to decide what 119 00:10:33,720 --> 00:10:41,639 is again disinformation and appropriate information. Well, just to give you a little 120 00:10:41,639 --> 00:10:43,799 bit of hope, first of all, we are not giving up. So 121 00:10:43,960 --> 00:10:48,799 the case is still you know, we're pursuing it on the merits stage in 122 00:10:48,840 --> 00:10:50,639 the district court, and we want to get more discovery, and you know, 123 00:10:50,639 --> 00:10:52,960 to the extent they're saying, well, you don't have this. You 124 00:10:54,000 --> 00:10:56,639 can't show that Jill Hines, for instance, is one of our plaintiffs who 125 00:10:56,639 --> 00:11:01,639 they said became the closest to proving standing. You can't quite show that causal 126 00:11:01,679 --> 00:11:05,399 connection between what the government was demanding and her being censored. Well, we're 127 00:11:05,399 --> 00:11:07,480 going to go back and we're going to try to get those documents. And 128 00:11:07,559 --> 00:11:11,639 the district court has shown that it believes in our case and it saw that, 129 00:11:11,840 --> 00:11:16,080 you know, it said this is the most arguably the most massive attack 130 00:11:16,120 --> 00:11:18,759 on free speech in the history of the United States, which I agree with 131 00:11:18,279 --> 00:11:24,039 the you know, the federal government was censoring entire narratives, entire lines of 132 00:11:24,080 --> 00:11:28,120 thought. If you questioned the efficacy of the vaccines in twenty twenty one, 133 00:11:28,240 --> 00:11:33,360 even if you are a vaccine expert like our client Martin Kuldorf, you would 134 00:11:33,399 --> 00:11:37,159 be censored on social media as he was. The fact that he can't have, 135 00:11:37,399 --> 00:11:41,799 you know, produce an email from a government official telling Facebook or Twitter 136 00:11:41,840 --> 00:11:45,519 to censor Martin Kuldorf. Is that that is you know, they're saying that 137 00:11:45,559 --> 00:11:50,720 sinks his standing is absurd. How is he supposed to get that without without 138 00:11:50,840 --> 00:11:54,919 you know, much more discovery. I mean, they're making it very difficult 139 00:11:54,960 --> 00:11:58,919 to bring the case, but they're not making it impossible. And there so 140 00:11:58,080 --> 00:12:01,759 one of the reasons I sort of anticipated this was, I don't know if 141 00:12:01,799 --> 00:12:09,000 you were aware that the so RFK Junior has moved to join our case in 142 00:12:09,039 --> 00:12:11,879 the district court, and his motion was granted. We didn't oppose it. 143 00:12:11,559 --> 00:12:16,440 He sought to join in the in the Supreme Court at a late stage and 144 00:12:16,480 --> 00:12:18,559 we did oppose the x. We said, basically, you know this is 145 00:12:18,799 --> 00:12:22,960 we're way too far along for you to join. And the court denied his 146 00:12:24,039 --> 00:12:28,320 application, but Alito dissented and basically implied, some of my fellow members of 147 00:12:28,360 --> 00:12:31,759 the court might have issues with standing, so you should let him join to 148 00:12:31,879 --> 00:12:35,399 avoid losing the case on that basis. And for those who don't know, 149 00:12:35,759 --> 00:12:41,759 there were explicit emails from officials within the federal government demanding that RFK Junior be 150 00:12:41,840 --> 00:12:46,480 removed from social media alone, and then he was mentioned as a member of 151 00:12:46,480 --> 00:12:50,720 the Disinformation doesn't, and they were then the disinformation doesn't which included him, 152 00:12:50,919 --> 00:12:58,200 was then removed. Just amazing, And so do you believe that had Alito's 153 00:12:58,759 --> 00:13:05,480 Alito's take on this prevailed, if if RFK Junior had been allowed into the 154 00:13:05,519 --> 00:13:11,360 case, with that information allowed into the case, that that could have made 155 00:13:11,360 --> 00:13:15,080 a difference in the outcome. I think it very well could have, because 156 00:13:15,200 --> 00:13:20,159 he had the kind of information that they're saying our plaintiffs lacked, like he 157 00:13:20,279 --> 00:13:24,159 was explicitly mentioned, as you know, the White House demanding a takedown of 158 00:13:24,240 --> 00:13:28,559 him, and then he was taken down. And another person is Alex Berenson, 159 00:13:28,600 --> 00:13:33,919 who has his own lawsuit. He got internal Twitter emails showing where they 160 00:13:33,919 --> 00:13:37,799 were talking about how the White House is putting us under pressure to remove him 161 00:13:37,799 --> 00:13:41,919 from Twitter, and then he was taken down even though he had received assurances 162 00:13:41,919 --> 00:13:45,240 from Twitter that his account was safe. So he's another person. He you 163 00:13:45,240 --> 00:13:48,159 know, he has his independent lawsuit. He would probably be deemed to have 164 00:13:48,240 --> 00:13:54,600 standing in this case. It's you know what is so difficult for those of 165 00:13:54,679 --> 00:14:01,240 us who are toiling in the fields of journalism every day. My colleagues and 166 00:14:01,279 --> 00:14:07,759 I can tell you that the Biden administration has been absolutely horrible about following Freedom 167 00:14:07,759 --> 00:14:11,480 of Information Act laws. It refuses to turn over information, It's been subpoena 168 00:14:11,600 --> 00:14:16,480 to turnover information, still refuses to turnover information. We have myriad examples of 169 00:14:16,519 --> 00:14:24,840 that. So how do you make a case against a government for suppressing speech 170 00:14:24,080 --> 00:14:30,960 when that government won't turn over the information that you have sought. Well, 171 00:14:30,960 --> 00:14:33,600 that's I mean, that's an excellent question, and that's the issue. I 172 00:14:33,600 --> 00:14:35,639 mean, they essentially put you in a catch twenty two. And that would 173 00:14:35,639 --> 00:14:41,759 be so even if the government wasn't trying to subvert these Foyer requests and that 174 00:14:41,840 --> 00:14:46,159 you know, the district court in my case in Changizi basically said, you 175 00:14:46,200 --> 00:14:48,799 know, you would need those kinds of emails. Well, how are you 176 00:14:48,840 --> 00:14:52,159 supposed to get those emails if you throw it out before discovery? We were 177 00:14:52,200 --> 00:14:54,840 at least saying, just give us, you know, some preliminary discovery, 178 00:14:54,600 --> 00:14:58,720 let us prove that we can. Let us get these you know, documents 179 00:14:58,720 --> 00:15:03,679 and see if we can prove more of a direct causal link. But if 180 00:15:03,679 --> 00:15:07,480 you toss it at the free discovery, then we're never going to be able 181 00:15:07,480 --> 00:15:09,519 to get that. So basically, I mean Alito's right that what This case 182 00:15:09,559 --> 00:15:16,799 holds is that if the government does its unlawful, censorious activity in the darkness 183 00:15:16,639 --> 00:15:20,960 and nobody knows what's going on, they can get away with it. Janine 184 00:15:20,039 --> 00:15:26,919 Unice is Litigation Council for the New Liberties New Civil Liberties Alliance, and the 185 00:15:28,080 --> 00:15:35,159 organization represents the private plaintiffs in the jaw owning case Murthy versus Missouri. She 186 00:15:35,360 --> 00:15:41,279 joins us on this edition of The Federalist Radio Hour, Let's get to Alito's 187 00:15:41,600 --> 00:15:48,240 stinging descent. I had plenty of examples thanks to my colleague Jordan Boyd, 188 00:15:48,279 --> 00:15:52,720 who wrote a great piece on that today at the Federalist. She notes Justice 189 00:15:52,759 --> 00:15:56,799 Samuel Alito mince no words in his public evisceration of the Supreme Court six y 190 00:15:56,879 --> 00:16:04,440 three Murthy the Missouri decision to green light the Biden administration's flagrant First Amendment violations. 191 00:16:06,240 --> 00:16:10,200 In one part of the dissent, Alito rights, we are obligated to 192 00:16:10,279 --> 00:16:14,559 tackle the free speech issue that the case presents. The Court, however, 193 00:16:15,120 --> 00:16:21,120 shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to 194 00:16:21,240 --> 00:16:26,200 stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people 195 00:16:26,320 --> 00:16:33,559 say. Here and think I would imagine as an attorney for the plaintiffs in 196 00:16:33,559 --> 00:16:37,639 this case, you would wholeheartedly agree with that. But the bottom line here 197 00:16:37,720 --> 00:16:45,840 is what does the future hold for free speech and the distribution of information in 198 00:16:45,879 --> 00:16:52,200 this country based on what we've seen in this ruling, Well, your right 199 00:16:52,399 --> 00:16:56,559 to be pessimistic about the future of free speech. I mean, the court 200 00:16:56,600 --> 00:17:02,320 has essentially green lighted the government doing, you know, instrumentalizing these companies in 201 00:17:02,440 --> 00:17:04,400 order to silence fees. It doesn't like now one, you know, I 202 00:17:04,440 --> 00:17:07,039 try to look for some rays of hope. Another ray of hope among those 203 00:17:07,039 --> 00:17:11,119 I've mentioned is that there was some implication that it would have gone differently if 204 00:17:11,119 --> 00:17:15,240 we had sued the private companies as state actors. Now we didn't do that. 205 00:17:15,480 --> 00:17:18,000 It was obviously a theory that we've floated, but we just don't. 206 00:17:18,079 --> 00:17:22,079 As a matter of our mission, we'd only see the government, So we 207 00:17:22,160 --> 00:17:26,119 didn't do that. Other people might be able to do that, and that 208 00:17:26,319 --> 00:17:33,559 would that would create create an incentive for the companies not to just go along 209 00:17:33,599 --> 00:17:37,640 with this kind of thing, because then if they can be sued under the 210 00:17:37,640 --> 00:17:41,920 theory that they're effectively state actors, depriving people of their constitutional rights. They 211 00:17:41,920 --> 00:17:45,279 could lose a lot of money. So I think that's another way that things 212 00:17:45,319 --> 00:17:49,279 could go to sort of get the government out of the business of social media 213 00:17:49,400 --> 00:17:55,640 censorship. May be the most encouraging thing that I've heard so far in our 214 00:17:55,680 --> 00:18:00,559 conversation is that I think a lot of people think that the is over, 215 00:18:00,680 --> 00:18:03,960 and it certainly makes it very difficult to move on the standing issue that the 216 00:18:03,960 --> 00:18:10,200 Supreme Court decided. But as you noted, this is not over. You 217 00:18:10,359 --> 00:18:15,920 plan to bring up some key evidence, important points when this goes back to 218 00:18:17,039 --> 00:18:22,839 the lower courts. Let's talk a little bit about this that aspect and where 219 00:18:22,880 --> 00:18:26,279 you go from here legally speaking. Sure. So, Actually I don't know 220 00:18:26,279 --> 00:18:32,720 if you were aware of the emails that came out during doctor Warren's's congressional testimony 221 00:18:32,759 --> 00:18:36,799 about a month in a row. Yes, yeah, he had basically had. 222 00:18:36,920 --> 00:18:40,440 He was Fauci, doctor Fauci's senior advisor, and he had a lot 223 00:18:40,440 --> 00:18:44,960 of emails saying that you know, Tony clearly referring to doctor Fauci, uses 224 00:18:45,039 --> 00:18:48,920 secret back channels in order to ensure that he doesn't have to comply with Foyer 225 00:18:48,000 --> 00:18:52,839 requests, and Tony is too smart to use his nih email, he's his 226 00:18:52,960 --> 00:18:56,799 Gmail and hand server. So I actually filed emotion last week in the District 227 00:18:56,799 --> 00:19:02,799 Court saying that we should get more discovery on Fauci and various actors that he 228 00:19:02,839 --> 00:19:07,440 was communicating with, apparently using Gmail based on this evidence, because if this 229 00:19:07,799 --> 00:19:11,759 appeared to be mostly related to the lab leak theory that he was involved in 230 00:19:11,759 --> 00:19:17,960 suppressing, but if he was using Gmail and email deletion, that was another 231 00:19:18,000 --> 00:19:21,119 thing. Doctor Warren says that they deleted emails. If he was using those 232 00:19:21,119 --> 00:19:26,960 as tools to avoid having to reveal controversial or embarrassing or unlawful activity that he 233 00:19:26,039 --> 00:19:30,400 was involved in, then there's every reason to believe that he was involved in 234 00:19:30,440 --> 00:19:34,519 censoring like the Great Barrington Declaration which two of our clients wrote, or other 235 00:19:34,640 --> 00:19:40,519 kinds of things about COVID, that he would be using Gmail for those emails 236 00:19:40,519 --> 00:19:44,759 and deleting them too. So we already filed that motion last week saying we 237 00:19:44,759 --> 00:19:48,519 should get discovery on that, and we will continue to do that. In 238 00:19:48,559 --> 00:19:52,039 fact, we can put forth to the District Court that now discovery is even 239 00:19:52,039 --> 00:19:55,519 more important because we need evidence that our clients were censored at the behest of 240 00:19:55,559 --> 00:19:59,599 the federal government. Ultimately. I think that's interesting because there have been a 241 00:19:59,599 --> 00:20:03,240 lot of details that have come to light, a lot of emails, a 242 00:20:03,240 --> 00:20:07,200 lot of communications, a lot of very troubling communications from the government that have 243 00:20:07,279 --> 00:20:12,440 come to light since the filing of this case. As you mentioned, you 244 00:20:12,480 --> 00:20:18,599 know, the internal documents about Anthony Fauci. What a genius he was, 245 00:20:18,680 --> 00:20:23,480 of course for suppressing this information from the public. I'm curious, do you 246 00:20:23,559 --> 00:20:33,359 think ultimately the government could help in your case, could help restore freedoms on 247 00:20:33,440 --> 00:20:40,319 this line, because we have clearly conservatives in the House in particular going after 248 00:20:40,400 --> 00:20:44,039 this information that I think, as you noted, could be very beneficial to 249 00:20:44,079 --> 00:20:48,599 your case. Yeah. Sure. So it was funny I was slated to 250 00:20:48,720 --> 00:20:52,079 testify before the Small Business Committee about actually the case in which we represent the 251 00:20:52,079 --> 00:20:56,599 Federalist was it was the main one, but this case was touched upon a 252 00:20:56,599 --> 00:20:59,640 little bit, and it started at ten am. So this decision came down. 253 00:20:59,680 --> 00:21:02,000 I saw, oh, like right as I was supposed to start testifying 254 00:21:02,039 --> 00:21:04,480 that it had come down, And that was one of the things we emphasized 255 00:21:04,480 --> 00:21:07,359 in the hearing. Well, like, this makes Congress's job all the more 256 00:21:07,400 --> 00:21:15,000 important. We need we clearly need check on the executive because they're continuing to 257 00:21:15,039 --> 00:21:21,799 engage in these sorts of activities. How much worse does this get now that 258 00:21:21,920 --> 00:21:27,000 basically the signal is sent to the Biden administration, which was very much engaged 259 00:21:27,039 --> 00:21:33,359 in this, and of course they were engaged in this under the Trump administration 260 00:21:33,440 --> 00:21:36,640 too. Let's be fair about it. There were you know, government bureaucrats 261 00:21:37,240 --> 00:21:42,599 suppressing information in the twenty twenty election critical to the voter. In the twenty 262 00:21:42,680 --> 00:21:48,279 twenty election, we think about, in particular the Hunter Biden laptop. That 263 00:21:48,359 --> 00:21:56,200 remains a key point that you know, big tech and the corporate media cabal, 264 00:21:56,440 --> 00:22:03,079 the accomplice media finally now decided that why that laptop is for real? 265 00:22:03,880 --> 00:22:08,400 Wouldn't that have made a difference at some level, don't you think in late 266 00:22:08,440 --> 00:22:15,200 October of twenty twenty. Oh absolutely, yeah, yeah, no, no, 267 00:22:15,200 --> 00:22:18,920 no, go ahead, because I think what occurred then with the laptop, 268 00:22:19,039 --> 00:22:22,920 with the COVID stuff, all of the policies of the government, I 269 00:22:22,920 --> 00:22:29,880 think extremely informative for what lies ahead in the Biden administration. Unfortunately, six 270 00:22:29,920 --> 00:22:33,200 members of the Supreme Court didn't think so much on that front. Yeah, 271 00:22:33,240 --> 00:22:37,480 So a few things there. First of all, I'll clarify that I say 272 00:22:37,480 --> 00:22:41,799 this, I'm actually not a Republican and I'm not a Trump supporter in any 273 00:22:41,799 --> 00:22:47,079 way, But to be fair to his administration, they were not engaging in 274 00:22:47,079 --> 00:22:49,240 this the way the Biden administration was or at all were sure. Sure, 275 00:22:49,359 --> 00:22:52,680 yes, there were agencies that I think were acting sort of rogue or even 276 00:22:52,720 --> 00:22:57,200 contrary to the Trump administration's interests because they were covering up the Hunter Biden laptop 277 00:22:57,240 --> 00:23:00,400 story and that sort of thing. You know, Biden took office and then 278 00:23:00,480 --> 00:23:06,720 sort of used the White House to effectuate this censorship regime and started coordinating with 279 00:23:06,759 --> 00:23:10,920 the agencies, and they even established this disinformation government at sports. So I 280 00:23:10,960 --> 00:23:15,480 mean, if I were a Republican politician, and certainly if I were in 281 00:23:15,519 --> 00:23:18,519 the Trump campaign, I would be making hay out of this and saying that, 282 00:23:18,559 --> 00:23:22,720 you know, the Biden administration is going to continue, this is going 283 00:23:22,759 --> 00:23:25,400 to make it worse, and we're going to stop the censorship. That seems 284 00:23:25,400 --> 00:23:30,319 to be a political a political wedge that Republicans could use. Do you think, 285 00:23:30,440 --> 00:23:36,079 from all that you have experienced, all the documents that you've seen, 286 00:23:37,200 --> 00:23:45,759 do you think that this ruling could ultimately affect November's election I think so if 287 00:23:45,799 --> 00:23:49,000 it's publicized enough, and I think if, as I said, if Trump 288 00:23:49,119 --> 00:23:52,759 uses it to his advantage. I think there are a lot of people who 289 00:23:52,839 --> 00:23:55,160 have a real problem with the censorship. And I'll say, I mean, 290 00:23:55,240 --> 00:23:59,559 I'm just using myself as an example. I you know, I have a 291 00:23:59,599 --> 00:24:02,880 lot of with both Biden and Trump, I was sort of inclined not to 292 00:24:02,920 --> 00:24:06,039 vote for either of This might make me lean a little bit more Trump because 293 00:24:06,039 --> 00:24:08,519 I'm so opposed to the censorship. So a lot of sort of independent or 294 00:24:08,559 --> 00:24:12,599 undecided voters out there could be swayed, I think on this basis interesting. 295 00:24:14,200 --> 00:24:21,559 So what does this mean to the for the groups that were really involved in 296 00:24:22,240 --> 00:24:27,359 this level of suppression of speech suppression? I mean, I think about this 297 00:24:27,440 --> 00:24:36,039 little agency, little known until the last few years in the homeland Department of 298 00:24:36,039 --> 00:24:40,839 Homeland Security, you know, that had disinformations are for goodness sakes, they 299 00:24:40,880 --> 00:24:47,920 had to in essence invent a word about mal information or information that the government 300 00:24:47,960 --> 00:24:51,279 would rather you not have. Not that it's not factual, but it's it's 301 00:24:51,400 --> 00:24:56,359 uncomfortable for the government for you you to have that information. The government feels 302 00:24:56,839 --> 00:25:07,119 that that's inappropriate information to have. This decision I would imagine must only embolden 303 00:25:07,599 --> 00:25:11,279 those agencies to do what they've done. That's right. In fact, I 304 00:25:11,319 --> 00:25:15,960 was going to use the term embolden before you, So I can't. I 305 00:25:15,960 --> 00:25:18,160 mean, I can't agree more unfortunately, And I think again, what the 306 00:25:18,279 --> 00:25:22,359 signals is that absent to change in administration, this is going to continue and 307 00:25:22,440 --> 00:25:26,759 get worse. And I do you know, I think I hope that Trump 308 00:25:26,480 --> 00:25:30,400 takes this and you know, makes the stand, says we're not going to 309 00:25:30,440 --> 00:25:33,079 continue this, and is truthful about that, and doesn't because that would make 310 00:25:33,119 --> 00:25:37,079 a really big difference. And I think at this point we might need a 311 00:25:37,119 --> 00:25:41,160 solution like that, since it's clear that the Court has not has not stood 312 00:25:41,200 --> 00:25:45,039 up for our rights. I would say that great minds think alike. But 313 00:25:45,079 --> 00:25:48,359 I don't want to insult you putting my mind in the arena of your mind, 314 00:25:48,759 --> 00:25:56,039 because you have been at the center of some fascinating and vitally important cases, 315 00:25:56,240 --> 00:26:03,880 liberty cases facing this country and it's citizens. And I wanted to talk 316 00:26:03,920 --> 00:26:08,559 to you a little bit more before we close the conversation about what the Litigation 317 00:26:08,720 --> 00:26:15,720 Council for the New Civil Liberties Alliance excuse me, what the New Civil Liberties 318 00:26:15,759 --> 00:26:22,599 Alliance is doing you as litigation council for that organization, the many areas where 319 00:26:22,599 --> 00:26:27,720 you're fighting for constitutional principles. So what we mostly do is fight the administrative 320 00:26:27,759 --> 00:26:32,640 state. So a lot of what we do has to deals with separation of 321 00:26:32,720 --> 00:26:37,119 powers and executive agencies doing things that they really shouldn't be doing and maybe Congress 322 00:26:37,160 --> 00:26:41,640 could do, but they can't. And this just happens all the time where 323 00:26:41,640 --> 00:26:45,920 they're effectively making laws that deprive people of their rights. So we have cases 324 00:26:45,960 --> 00:26:49,599 dealing with the SEC. For a long time, the SEC was able to 325 00:26:49,599 --> 00:26:55,119 have like just administrative tribunals where you were tried by an administrative law judge who 326 00:26:55,200 --> 00:27:00,279 wasn't independent. We've been challenging that kind of thing with some success, the 327 00:27:00,359 --> 00:27:07,039 case called Relentless, which is challenging Chevron judicial deference to executive to agencies. 328 00:27:07,160 --> 00:27:11,319 That's our main mandate. We also do pure free speech stuff. So I 329 00:27:11,359 --> 00:27:15,920 had a case just challenging California's AB twenty ninety eight, which punished doctors for 330 00:27:15,000 --> 00:27:21,200 spreading COVID misinformation so called to patients, which just met meant giving in diffart 331 00:27:21,240 --> 00:27:22,960 from the states when it came to vaccines and asks and that kind of thing 332 00:27:23,720 --> 00:27:29,960 that was a state law. It was not terribly usual for us to do 333 00:27:30,000 --> 00:27:33,000 that kind of thing, but I brought that challenge with success. Actually, 334 00:27:33,039 --> 00:27:36,799 we got a preliminary injunction there and then the legislature appealed the law. So 335 00:27:36,880 --> 00:27:41,400 we have a variety of interests, but mainly we're interested in protecting Americans constitutional 336 00:27:41,480 --> 00:27:44,920 rights. So many liberties are on the line. But I just back to 337 00:27:44,960 --> 00:27:51,200 the Chevron case again. I don't know how, after what we as Americans 338 00:27:51,279 --> 00:27:56,599 have survived in this country over the last four years or so, I don't 339 00:27:56,599 --> 00:28:02,599 know how a Supreme Court and I mean concerned privatives liberals alike on that court 340 00:28:03,119 --> 00:28:08,480 could ever simply just defer to the so called experts. Again. Yeah, 341 00:28:08,519 --> 00:28:12,359 I mean, you make an extremely good point, the idea that they've proven 342 00:28:12,400 --> 00:28:15,680 that they're completely inept. And one of the points I think it's important to 343 00:28:15,759 --> 00:28:21,279 make is our clients, two of them, Jay Bondichari and Martin Kuldorf, 344 00:28:21,279 --> 00:28:26,319 who co authored the Great Barrington Declaration. They are epidemiologists at Stanford and Harvard. 345 00:28:26,720 --> 00:28:30,759 They disagreed with lockdowns as an approach based on their knowledge of epidemiology. 346 00:28:32,880 --> 00:28:37,359 They were censored heavily on social media and other forms of media, so people 347 00:28:37,480 --> 00:28:41,759 like them, even extremely qualified people who disputed the government's approach approach were shut 348 00:28:41,799 --> 00:28:47,319 down in silenced, So the public got the illusion of a consensus that didn't 349 00:28:47,359 --> 00:28:51,799 actually exist, that most people of most of the public thought all experts think 350 00:28:51,839 --> 00:28:55,119 we should do lockdowns and mass mandates and vaccine mandates. And there were actually 351 00:28:55,200 --> 00:28:57,559 lots of really smart, qualified dissenters, but they were silenced. And it 352 00:28:57,559 --> 00:29:02,440 turns out that that had to do with the federal government's actions. And I 353 00:29:02,519 --> 00:29:06,240 think that should horrify all Americans. Where do these folks go to get their 354 00:29:06,279 --> 00:29:14,880 reputations back? That's a question. I mean. Martin actually publicly revealed that 355 00:29:15,000 --> 00:29:18,599 he had been fired from Harvard for refusing the vaccine after he had a bad 356 00:29:18,680 --> 00:29:21,799 mouth of COVID and had natural immunity so he didn't want to get it. 357 00:29:22,200 --> 00:29:26,200 He saw that the risks is outwing the benefits. At that point, Jays 358 00:29:26,200 --> 00:29:30,720 suffered horrible persecution at Stanford, and I think things are better now. But 359 00:29:32,079 --> 00:29:33,759 you know, I think a lot of people really admire them and have seen 360 00:29:33,799 --> 00:29:37,359 their courage and that they were right, and you know, they were. 361 00:29:40,079 --> 00:29:42,319 They ended up being right about everything basically. So I think they have followings, 362 00:29:42,319 --> 00:29:47,000 but it's been difficult for them over the years because they faced so much 363 00:29:47,039 --> 00:29:51,519 hostility. It all feels like the Red Scare to me, or at least 364 00:29:51,559 --> 00:29:56,400 the perceived Red Scare. If you've followed history, you know some of what 365 00:29:56,680 --> 00:30:03,799 happened with communists in this country was you know, we can argue about the 366 00:30:03,319 --> 00:30:11,599 means and the methods, but there was a real concern about communist getting deeply 367 00:30:11,680 --> 00:30:17,440 involved in some of our institutions. But you know, some of the abuses 368 00:30:17,480 --> 00:30:22,519 that had occurred in the Red Scare remind me that the more things change, 369 00:30:22,599 --> 00:30:26,480 the more they seem to be the same. Right. I mean, I 370 00:30:26,480 --> 00:30:30,599 will always be fighting this battle. I think final question for you is I 371 00:30:30,599 --> 00:30:38,440 get back to Murphy and the Missouri and that is, do you think this 372 00:30:38,599 --> 00:30:42,240 case, and you know all of the details surrounding it, all of the 373 00:30:42,279 --> 00:30:48,079 information that's come out involving what big Tech did, do you think there'll be 374 00:30:48,119 --> 00:30:52,119 a little more circumspect, at least in the commercial interest moving forward. Yeah, 375 00:30:52,160 --> 00:30:56,759 And as I alluded to earlier, I think that people could bring lawsuits 376 00:30:56,799 --> 00:31:00,920 of arguing that they were effectively acting as arms of the state. You know, 377 00:31:00,960 --> 00:31:03,279 they can't do this. They can't be doing the government's bidding and then 378 00:31:03,359 --> 00:31:07,240 saying like, oh, we're private companies. So I think people who are 379 00:31:07,240 --> 00:31:11,519 censored on Twitter and other social media platforms can and should sue, especially if 380 00:31:11,519 --> 00:31:17,039 they could tie like they're living to it, because they can presumably get damages 381 00:31:17,079 --> 00:31:21,319 and that might deter the companies from engaging in this kind of you know, 382 00:31:21,359 --> 00:31:25,519 so called content moderation. The other thing is the Net Choice case cases haven't 383 00:31:25,519 --> 00:31:30,319 come down yet. Those have to do with state laws from Texas and Florida 384 00:31:30,359 --> 00:31:37,839 that basically prohibit the platforms from censoring people for expressing certain viewpoints. I expect 385 00:31:37,880 --> 00:31:41,759 those will be decided tomorrow or Friday, or maybe early next week because that's 386 00:31:41,759 --> 00:31:45,119 the end of the Supreme Court's term. So that's another way that we might 387 00:31:45,160 --> 00:31:49,119 be able to deal with this. Are you hopeful in those cases that there 388 00:31:49,119 --> 00:31:55,720 will be checks on speech suppression? Not particularly? The Florida law had some 389 00:31:55,839 --> 00:32:01,000 problems. It favored politicians over regular so I think there was argument that it 390 00:32:01,079 --> 00:32:05,240 was sort of viewpoint discrimination on its own. The Texas law I think was 391 00:32:05,319 --> 00:32:08,240 much better. I the argument went better than I thought for the states, 392 00:32:08,480 --> 00:32:15,079 but I still think it might be an upheld battle, but nevertheless, I'm 393 00:32:15,119 --> 00:32:17,920 not totally hopeless. So maybe they'll the court will come down with something that's 394 00:32:17,920 --> 00:32:22,599 a little bit helpful. Well, I must tell you I'm feeling a little 395 00:32:22,799 --> 00:32:28,160 more hopeful after our conversation today that this fight is not over, nor should 396 00:32:28,200 --> 00:32:31,440 it be. There's got to be other means to protect speech in America, 397 00:32:31,599 --> 00:32:37,640 and it sounds like that is exactly what you intend to do. Yeah, 398 00:32:37,680 --> 00:32:44,119 that's great, it's not over. Well. I appreciate you being here joining 399 00:32:44,200 --> 00:32:50,160 us on the Federalist Radio Hour podcast, but I particularly appreciate the fight that 400 00:32:50,240 --> 00:32:53,599 you are engaged in. It's so very critical. Thanks to my guest today, 401 00:32:53,880 --> 00:33:00,680 Janine Unis, Litigation Council for the New Civil Liberties Alliance. You've been 402 00:33:00,680 --> 00:33:04,680 listening to another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, senior 403 00:33:04,720 --> 00:33:08,039 correspondent at the Federalist. We'll be back soon with more. Until then, 404 00:33:08,599 --> 00:33:20,319 stay lovers of freedom and anxious for the fray.