A US appeals court temporarily blocks a lower July 6 court order sharply limiting US government officials' and agencies' contacts with social media companies
for now. Norman Ornstein / @normornstein : If even the 5th Circuit does this, it shows how reckless and radical the decision was Eric Garland / @ericgarland : BREAKING: FIFTH CIRCUIT STAYS MISSOURI'S ULTRA-DUMB LAWSUIT BANNING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM DEFENDING AGAINST FOREIGN CYBER ATTACKS https://www.reuters.com/... Richard Stengel / @stengel : Makes sense. Doughty's opinion was so wrong-headed about the First Amendment and government and the platforms. Good on the 5th circuit. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... Nora Benavidez / @attorneynora : The lower court ruling posed a dangerous chilling threat to expression which the platforms could use as pretext to retreat from necessary election integrity & trust/safety efforts. I explain what's at stake for the 1st Amendment & platform accountability: https://techpolicy.press/... Nora Benavidez / @attorneynora : Judge Doughty's misguided ruling would likely only fan the flames of Big Tech minimalism under the guise of protecting free speech. For now, the 5th Circuit stay mitigates the chilling effect of Doughty's ruling. More from me as we wait for oral arguments. Nora Benavidez / @attorneynora : Practically, by the time platform content has reached the level of a public safety, national security or election interference threat, it's likely already gone viral and it is dangerously late in the game to mitigate visibility and real-world harm. Nora Benavidez / @attorneynora : Doughty's ruling is overly broad, overlooking First Amendment precedent. The mere act of contacting social media companies regarding violative content, incl. lies abt COVID & elections, shouldn't in itself be considered an 'attack against free speech."https://www.justsecurity.org/ ... Nora Benavidez / @attorneynora : The ruling creates several exceptions in which gov't may contact platforms to flag threats to nat'l security & foreign election interference. Legally, these are dangerous opening for platforms/courts to determine what constitutes speech gov't can ask about & which it cannot. Nora Benavidez / @attorneynora : The 5th Circuit just granted the Biden admin temporary relief from Judge Doughty's ruling two wks ago, which had banned gov't agencies/officials from contacting social media companies. Appellate order is minimal but this gives time for oral arguments:https://talkingpointsmemo.com / ...
Context & Ripple Effects
On July 6, a lower-court judge named Doughty issued an injunction sharply restricting how U.S. government officials and agencies may communicate with social media companies — a ruling that drew immediate criticism from commentators like Norman Ornstein and Richard Stengel as a misreading of First Amendment limits on government speech. Days later, the Fifth Circuit — the same court whose earlier reading of Section 230 underpinned its defense of Texas's content-moderation law — temporarily stayed that injunction pending further review.
The stay matters because it reopens the channel between federal agencies and platforms mid-lawsuit, with Missouri's challenge still live. The episode is one round in a longer judicial tug-of-war over who polices online speech: months later, SCOTUS itself paused the ban on administration-platform contacts and took up the DOJ's appeal.
First-order effects
- Biden administration officials and agencies regain the ability to contact social media companies about content — including foreign interference and misinformation flagged in the case — while the appeal proceeds, reversing the practical effect of Doughty's July 6 order.
Second-order effects
- Platforms get conflicting compliance signals from successive court orders, forcing them to recalibrate how they document and respond to government takedown requests each time a stay or injunction lands.
- Missouri's suit loses momentum: a stay by the very circuit court reviewing the case narrows what the plaintiffs can enforce against federal agencies before the merits are decided.
Third-order effects
- With SCOTUS later pausing the same restrictions and separately ordering a do-over on Texas's and Florida's social media laws after finding flawed First Amendment analysis, the judiciary is consolidating its role as the arbiter of where government persuasion of platforms ends and censorship begins — a boundary no statute yet defines.
The trend: Court orders, not legislation, are becoming the operative rulebook for permissible government contact with social media platforms, with each stay and appeal resetting the line.