The ruling, which was prompted by a lawsuit filed by a Republican official, called the decision “a blow against censorship.”

U.S. district judge Terry Doughty in Louisiana granted an injunction as a response to a lawsuit filed in 2022 by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri. The lawsuit claimed that the federal government had overstepped its bounds in trying to convince social media firms to remove postings which could lead to vaccine hesitancy or influence elections during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Doughty provided “substantial proof” that a wide-reaching campaign of censorship was underway. He wrote that “the evidence produced so far depicts a dystopian situation.” The United States Government appears to have played a similar role to Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Republican U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt (who was Missouri Attorney General when the lawsuit was brought) said on Twitter that this ruling was a “huge win for the First Amendment” and a “blow to censorship”.

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry stated that the injunction prohibits the administration from “censoring the core speech of ordinary Americans on social media”.

Landry stated in a press release that the evidence presented in this case was shocking and offensive. Senior federal officials decided they could dictate to Americans what they can and cannot post on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube about COVID-19 and elections. They also said they could censor criticism of government and COVID-19.

A White House official, who spoke under condition of anonymity and was not authorized by the White House to speak publicly about the case, said that the Justice Department is reviewing an injunction.

The official stated that “this administration has promoted responsible action to protect public safety, health, and security in the face of challenges such as a deadly virus and foreign attacks against our elections.” “Our consistent opinion remains that social media platforms must take into account the impact their platforms have on the American public, while making independent decisions about the information presented.”

The injunction prohibits several government agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services and FBI from engaging in discussions with social media firms aimed at “encouraging or pressuring or inducing, in any way, the removal, deletion or suppression of protected free speech content.”

The order names several officials by name, including Health and Human Services Sec. Xavier Becerra and Department of Homeland Security Sec. Alejandro Mayorkas, among others.

Doughty made several exceptions. These included notifying social media companies about postings that involved criminal activity or conspiracies. It also allowed social media firms to be notified of threats against national security and other threats.

Jim Hoft, the conservative website owner, was also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The lawsuit accused administration of using regulatory actions, either favorable or unfavorable, to force social media platforms into eradicating what they considered false information on masks and vaccinations during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The lawsuit also addressed other issues, such as claims regarding election integrity and stories about material found on the laptop of Hunter Biden, son of the president.

Lawyers for the administration said that it was up to social media firms to determine what misinformation is and how it should be combated. In one brief they compared the lawsuit with an attempt to impose a legal ban on federal officials and “suppress their speech under the pretext of protecting others’ speech rights.”

In a court filing on May 3, the administration stated that “Plaintiffs proposed injunction” would hinder the Federal Government in its ability to fight foreign malign influence campaign, prosecute crimes and protect national security as well as provide accurate information about matters of great public concern, such health care and electoral integrity.