When James Lawrence and I introduced ourselves Berenson vs. Biden Last year holding White House and Pfizer officials accountable for censoring my 2021 reports on Covid mRNA vaccines, we knew our case was strong.
But a precedent, a called decision National Rifle Association against Vullo, presented a challenge because it set a very high bar for government efforts to use third parties as censors.
NRA v Vullo it was decided in the Second Circuit of Appeals, the same federal circuit that includes the court hearing Berenson vs. Biden. The Second Circuit ruled in September 2022 that it had a New York state regulator no violated the NRA's First Amendment rights when it pushed insurers to stop doing business with the NRA because of its advocacy of firearms.
As we expected, the defendants were very trusting NRA v Vullo when they asked federal judge Jessica GL Clarke to remove her Berenson vs. Biden. Indeed, the Department of Justice said i want much more so than any other case in his motion to dismiss last August.
But we don't have to worry NRA v Vullo month.
—
(Support untold truths. Support Berenson v. Biden. Support free speech. All for 20 cents a day.)
—
On May 30, the Supreme Court by unanimity reversed the decision of the Second Circuit NRA v Vullo, ruling that:
The ANR plausibly alleged this respondent [Vullo] violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities [insurance companies and banks] end its business dealings with the NRA to punish or suppress its advocacy of gun promotion.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the most liberal members of the court, wrote the decision.
Sotomayor's authorship is doubly notable because Sotomayor served as an appellate judge for the Second Circuit before joining the Supreme Court.
Is triple is noteworthy because in overturning the NRA's 2022 decision, Sotomayor and the Supreme Court cited as precedent a 2003 Second Circuit ruling called Okwedy v Molinari. Okwedy is very supportive of Berenson v. Biden, and Okwedy's lawsuit was much more analogous to my lawsuit than Vullo, which is now off the table. anyway.
In Okwedy, a three-judge Second Circuit panel unanimously found that Guy Molinari, then the Staten Island Borough President, had violated the First Amendment when he pushed a billboard company to remove a billboard with an anti- gay The appellate judges invested a district court ruling dismissing a lawsuit against Molinari by Kristopher Okwedy, the pastor whose church had paid for the billboard. They wrote that:
an official public defendant who threatens to use coercive state power to stifle protected speech violates a plaintiff's First Amendment rights even if the public defendant does not have regulatory or direct decision-making power about the claimant or a third party who facilitates the claimant's word.
The Second Circuit explained that in dismissing the claim:
The district court relied heavily on … the fact that Molinari had no direct regulatory or decisional authority over PNE [the billboard company]… [but] a defendant without such direct regulatory or decision-making authority may also exercise an impermissible type or degree of pressure.
—
(God loves billboards! And the First Amendment…)
—
best of all, Sonia Sotomayor was one of three Second Circuit judges in that 2003 opinion! now – in his opinion of the NRA – She and the rest of the Supreme Court have reaffirmed that:
[T]The First Amendment prohibits government officials from selectively exercising their power to punish or delete [emphasis added] speech, either directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries.
Additionally, the Supreme Court repeatedly explained in its decision that problematic conduct must be “viewed in context.” In other words, courts should try all anti-speech actions together, rather than analyzing them.
Similarly, in Berenson v. Biden, the defendants worked together on a months-long campaign that ultimately gave Twitter no choice but to violate its own contract with me and ban me.
Before the end of the month, the Supreme Court will almost certainly rule on the case now known as Murthy v. Missouri – about a wide range of government efforts in social media censorship. This decision will be implemented Berenson v. Biden, which has basically been put on hold while Justice Clarke waits for the Supreme Court to rule on first the NRA case and now Murthy.
I don't know what the Court will do to Murthy. But Berenson v Biden is already in an even stronger position thanks to its NRA decision. And I hope very soon to have some interesting news for you…
In the meantime, if you feel like it, you can support B v B here:
https://www.givesendgo.com/G9X98
https://www.gofundme.com/f/berenson-v-biden-and-pfizers-albert-bourla
Or Venmo: Alex-Berenson-3: The last four digits of my phone are 1745.
Or send a check to Envisage Law, 601 Oberlin Rd #100, Raleigh, NC 27608
—
(Or just subscribe!)
—
The case has been cheap for some time as we and the defendants await the rulings of the Supreme Court. I have reason to believe it will be expensive soon, for most… interesting… reason
Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines.
English 
Español de Venezuela 