A years-long legal fight over federal censorship has ended in a sweeping settlement that restricts the government’s ability to pressure social media companies to suppress protected speech, securing a decisive outcome for the plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden.
The agreement, secured by the New Civil Liberties Alliance on behalf of its clients, places binding restrictions on several federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and the Office of the Surgeon General. The consent decree prohibits those entities from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to suppress constitutionally protected speech.
The settlement establishes a 10-year framework that bars federal officials from threatening regulatory action, imposing legal consequences, or engaging in informal pressure campaigns to influence platform decisions about lawful content. It also prevents agencies from directing, controlling, or otherwise dictating how platforms moderate speech across major services such as Facebook, X, YouTube, Instagram, and LinkedIn.
The case originated in 2022, when Missouri and Louisiana filed suit alleging that federal officials engaged in a coordinated campaign with technology companies to suppress disfavored viewpoints. The complaint detailed extensive communications between government actors and social media platforms, including requests to remove or reduce the visibility of posts related to COVID-19 policies, vaccine harms, election procedures, and other politically sensitive topics.
Plaintiffs identified multiple channels of coordination, including regular meetings, email exchanges, and content flagging systems through which federal officials identified specific posts or accounts for review. The complaint alleged that these interactions went beyond permissible government speech and crossed into coercion, particularly when coupled with public and private threats of regulatory action against the platforms.
During discovery, plaintiffs obtained internal communications showing that federal agencies maintained ongoing relationships with platform representatives and tracked compliance with their requests. Evidence presented in the case showed that officials followed up on flagged content, sought reports on enforcement actions, and escalated concerns when platforms failed to act quickly.
In July 2023, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty issued a preliminary injunction finding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claims. The court concluded that federal officials had engaged in a broad effort to pressure social media companies to suppress speech and described the conduct as among the most extensive censorship efforts in modern American history.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed key portions of that ruling, holding that several agencies had likely violated the First Amendment by coercing or significantly encouraging platforms to moderate protected speech. The appellate court narrowed the scope of the injunction but maintained restrictions on core government actors involved in the communications.
The case later reached the U.S. Supreme Court as Murthy v. Missouri. In 2024, the Court dismissed the case on standing grounds, vacating the injunction while leaving the underlying factual record intact. The litigation then returned to the district court, where plaintiffs continued to pursue relief based on the evidentiary record developed during discovery.
The final settlement reflects that record. According to the New Civil Liberties Alliance, the consent decree directly addresses the conduct at issue by prohibiting federal agencies from engaging in coordinated pressure and backchannel communications that formed the basis of the lawsuit.
The agreement allows federal officials to communicate publicly about matters of public concern, including statements regarding misinformation or public health guidance, but it draws a clear line against efforts to induce or compel platforms to act against lawful speech.
Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who initiated the case while in office, said the outcome secures lasting protections for Americans’ right to speak freely online and establishes concrete limits on federal authority over digital platforms.
The consent decree is enforceable in federal court and allows plaintiffs to seek judicial intervention if violations occur during its term. The agreement now awaits final approval by a federal district court.
