Big news today in Missouri v. Biden, the case filed by the states of Missouri and Louisiana against various Biden administration officials over their alleged coordinated efforts with Big Tech to censor discussion surrounding COVID and other failures of the administration on social media. Although the Defendants had moved to dismiss all of the claims, the Court denied that motion, in large part, and the case will proceed.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who assumed handling of the case after his predecessor, Eric Schmitt, was elected to the U.S. Senate, announced the victory on Twitter early Monday afternoon.

The Court has DENIED Joe Biden’s motion to dismiss our case against the federal government for their vast censorship enterprise. Missouri will continue to lead the way in the fight to defend our most fundamental freedoms.

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) March 20, 2023

“The Court has DENIED Joe Biden’s motion to dismiss our case against the federal government for their vast censorship enterprise. Missouri will continue to lead the way in the fight to defend our most fundamental freedoms,” reads the tweet.

Discovery has been proceeding apace in the case, with depositions of Anthony Fauci and others being taken. As Teri Christoph noted once information regarding Fauci’s deposition began to emerge:

Another Fauci lie that came to light during the deposition was his role in downplaying the Great Barrington Declaration, in which a compendium of scientists argued against lockdowns in favor of common sense measures that would protect the most vulnerable. Per the New York Post:

After Fauci championed lockdowns to vanquish COVID, top scientists from Oxford, Stanford and Harvard in October 2020 issued the Great Barrington Declaration, which argued that “focused protection” for high-risk groups (such as the elderly) was vastly preferable to shutting down society.

When asked about his role in assailing that Declaration, Fauci declared, “I have a very busy day job running a $6 billion institute. I don’t have time to worry about things like the Great Barrington Declaration.” But less than two weeks after the Declaration’s release, Fauci emailed Deborah Birx, the White House COVID chief, “I have come out very strongly publicly against the Great Barrington Declaration.” Fauci did multiple media interviews castigating any suggestion that lockdowns were unnecessary to save America.

For most of us, that’s the crux of the matter. The dictatorial, one-size-fits-all approach championed by Anthony Fauci took away our right to deal with the pandemic in the way that best suited our situation and gave that right to the bumbling incompetents in government. That approach wears thin real quick — look no further than China to see how that goes.

A brief refresher about the significance of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (a Plaintiff in this lawsuit) and the suppression of the Great Barrington Declaration from Bob Hoge:

In his piece, titled “How Stanford Failed the Academic Freedom Test,” Bhattacharya reminds us of how far people in power were willing to go to hide information and discussion from the public in order to keep the money spigots flowing. With so many of the same people preaching now about how we should forget and move on, Bhattacharya shows us why we should never forget, and why those who were behind it should be held accountable.

COVID mania attained an almost religious fervor, he writes:

The COVID-19 pandemic has apparently brought us full circle, with a public health clerisy having replaced the religious one as the singular source of unassailable truth.

That would be the very same Stanford University at the heart of “The Virality Project,” detailed in the most recent Twitter Files releases:

Stanford University served essentially as the information hub, under the banner of “The Virality Project.” This enterprise was fed voluminous amounts of posts — numbering into the billions — that came from government agencies and social media platforms. They were flagging posts that dealt with questions about the vaccines, Senator Rand Paul’s comments on natural immunity, and even people telling or sharing what were labeled “worrisome jokes.” This shows how extensive their net was and how fine their information filter was set.

3.“Reports of vaccinated individuals contracting Covid-19 anyway”; “natural immunity”; suggesting Covid-19 “leaked from a lab”; even “worrisome jokes”: pic.twitter.com/CM5THKGYRu

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) March 17, 2023

What we’re seeing unfold here is confirmation — from multiple sources — of that “vast censorship enterprise” that Missouri v. Biden seeks to reveal and put a halt to. As noted above, Monday’s Court Order denied the bulk of the government Defendants’ motion.

Order Re MTD – Mo v Biden by Susie Moore on Scribd

The Order grants the motion as to the Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief against President Biden. The “injunctive relief” requested was twofold, asking the Court to:

1. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants, their officers, officials, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons acting in concert or participation with them, from continuing to engage in unlawful conduct as alleged herein; and
2. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants, their officers, officials, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons acting in concert or participation with them, from taking any steps to demand, urge, pressure, or otherwise induce any social-media platform to censor, suppress, de-platform, suspend, shadow-ban, de-boost, restrict access to content, or take any other adverse action against any speaker, content or viewpoint expressed on social media.

The crux of the requests is bolded. The Defendants’ argument as to why the requested relief could not be granted as to President Biden rests on the “separation of powers doctrine,” and Judge Terry Doughty, in his Memorandum accompanying the Order, acknowledged that “injunctions against the President have generally been disfavored (and may even be impossible).” Judge Doughty further explained:

[T]he Court agrees with Defendants that injunctive relief against President Biden is not proper here. Importantly, the Plaintiffs already seek relief against several subordinate federal officials, who are more properly subject to this Court’s jurisdiction. The case law suggests that where relief against other federal officials would redress the Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, the claims against the President should not proceed and are not necessary. Further, there is no statute underlying President Biden’s actions that the Court could point to in forcing the President into some action. Most of the case law on this issue discusses a specific statute that a President failed to comply with, a fact that is clearly lacking here. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief against President Biden should be dismissed.

But that dismissal was as to President Biden only, and only as to the injunctive relief sought, not the declaratory relief, which includes:

1. Declare that Defendants’ conduct violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and analogous provisions of Missouri’s, Louisiana’s, and other States’ Constitutions;
2. Declare that Defendants’ conduct is ultra vires and exceeds their statutory authority;
3. Declare that Defendants’ conduct violates the Administrative Procedure Act and is unlawful, and vacate and set aside such conduct

The Court denied that portion of the motion as to President Biden, noting that there is a lack of clear authority in the case law regarding declaratory relief sought against a sitting president. Most importantly, the Court denied the motion to dismiss outright as to all other Defendants.

What this means, as alluded above, is that discovery in the case will continue and, hopefully, the censorious overreach of administration officials like Anthony Fauci, Nina Jankowicz, Alejandro Mayorkas, and agencies like the CDC and FBI will be fully exposed and declared unconstitutional and improper under the law.