Are you ready? Something big is set to start on Monday. 

As we wrote in Oct. 2023, the attorneys general of Missouri and Lousiana, along with five plaintiffs, asked the United States Supreme Court to uphold an injunction prohibiting the Biden administration from colluding with Big Tech companies to stifle free speech on social media sites by calling it "misinformation." They also argued that the case should be heard in front of the High Court.

My colleague Susie Moore gave us the good news and the bad news:

Now, here's where the bad(ish) news comes in. The court granted certiorari in conjunction with granting the government's request for a stay, meaning that the injunction is placed on hold pending the court's deciding the case on the merits, presumably in June of 2024.[...]

Some good news to report on this frenetic Friday: The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the landmark free speech case of Missouri v. Biden, meaning the high court has agreed to hear the case.[...]

So what does this mean? It means that the case will be heard by the Supreme Court, but the injunction prohibiting the government from coordinating with social media platforms to censor certain speech is on hold until it renders its decision.

Read More: Good News/Bad News From the Supreme Court on Missouri v. Biden

The full opinion can be viewed in the above article; you can also find all of the filings in the case (including amicus briefs from other states/individuals) here.

The continuation of the good part is about to begin Monday morning: SCOTUS will hear arguments in what's now called Murthy v. Missouri, which may become a landmark case in the fight to uphold Americans' First Amendment rights

Journalist Glenn Greenwald and Twitter-X owner Elon Musk were just a few of the people talking about the case in anticipation of the SCOTUS hearing the case: 

Many Americans still have no idea this happened https://t.co/JBDGF85SBN

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 17, 2024

If you can't read the post, Greenwald writes:

The most under-reported and under-discussed story of 2023: a federal district court judge, upheld by a unanimous appellate panel, found the Biden WH and FBI committed one of the gravest attacks on the 1st Am in decades by coercing Big Tech to censor dissent online.

And in a quote-tweet, Musk says, "Many Americans still have no idea this happened." So true.

Several of the plaintiffs in the case also commented about the arguments on Monday, including Stanford School of Medicine professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya: 

The case that @elonmusk and @ggreenwald are referring to is the Murthy v. Missouri case, in which I am a plaintiff. The government pressured social media companies to censor scientific debate and criticisms of government policy. The Supreme Court will hear the case tomorrow.

— Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) March 17, 2024

He writes: 

The case that @elonmusk and @ggreenwald are referring to is the Murthy v. Missouri case, in which I am a plaintiff. The government pressured social media companies to censor scientific debate and criticisms of government policy. The Supreme Court will hear the case tomorrow.

Aaron Kheriaty says he looks forward to being in the courtroom:

I will be at the Supreme Court tomorrow as my co-plaintiffs and I ask the Court to uphold this injunction against government censorship. https://t.co/fPXEdMMDfo

— Aaron Kheriaty (@AaronKheriatyMD) March 17, 2024

Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt (R), who filed the then-Missouri v. Biden case as the state's Attorney General, shared just how important this case is to free speech rights in a video on Sunday:

When I was AG I filed Missouri v Biden. On Monday the Supreme Court hears the case. It’s the most important Free Speech case in our nation’s history.

The government can’t censor speech & it can’t outsource censorship to social media giants either.pic.twitter.com/jWzshevGsl

— Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) March 16, 2024

He called it the "biggest free speech case in American history," one that pit[s] the government against the people." He continued, in part:

At the core of the lawsuit is the idea that the federal government can't outsource censorship to social media companies to trample on Americans' speech, which is exactly what they were doing.

At the behest of some of the highest ranking government officials in the country, the biggest social media companies in the world censored speech on topics like the [Wuhan] lab leak theory, the Hunter Biden laptop story, the origins of COVID, the efficacy of masks, and much, much more.

The discovery that came out in that case is shocking, to say the least. It shows that it wasn't just one or two officials that were working with social media companies to censor American voices.

It was a leviathan of officials and agencies, more appropriately dubbed "a vast censorship enterprise. This case cuts to the very core of what it means to be an American.

The current Missouri AG Andrew Bailey sounds just as strong when speaking about the plaintiffs proceeding with the case in front of the High Court, saying that "his team looks forward to 'dismantling Joe Biden’s vast censorship enterprise at the nation’s highest court.'” 

UPDATE: I happened to see the below X post late Sunday night and felt it would be appropriate to add for anyone who reads this preview on Monday. These are the plaintiffs fighting for all Americans' First Amendment rights, standing with journalist Michael Shellenberger.

Join me in praying for them as they (literally) make their case at the Supreme Court today.

Please say a prayer for success in the Supreme Court tomorrow! pic.twitter.com/roMuNDaIeK

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) March 18, 2024

I love these guys! @JeninYounesEsq @DrJBhattacharya

Let’s go 1A!!! pic.twitter.com/fZ3tBaeVr8

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) March 18, 2024

RedState will continue to follow the case and bring you further updates as they become available.

Editor's Note: This article has been updated to reflect that Eric Schmitt is a senator for Missouri rather than the governor.