Breaking: Supreme Court rules horribly on biggest free-speech case in a century: Murthy v. Missouri with Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft as 1 of Top 5 Plaintiffs Gets Rejected by Court | The Gateway Pundit

US SUPREME COURT HORRIFYING RULES MURTHY V. MISSOURI: Biggest Free Speech Case in a Century!

In a stunning 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the Biden Administration's policy of removing, suppressing and de-platforming specific people, issues and ideas is immune from suit, with no one able to challenge- it in the courts.

The ruling, written by Judge Amy Coney Barrett, came with the following key decision: “Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek injunctive relief against any defendant “.

In short, the court rules that the two different types of parties, states and individuals harmed by these government policies, lack “standing” to sue. This case procedurally concerns the request for an injunction for the government to stop the censorship regime while the case continued.

This decision will make legal action in this case difficult but, experts say, not impossible. “It's a horrible decision, but the underlying case in the lower court is moving forward. The Gateway Pundit is dedicated to fighting the government for everyone's free speech rights, we are committed to the ultimate victory,” said John Burns, advisor general of Gateway Pundit.

You can read the decision here.

In addition, Judge Coney Barrett let the government off the hook for the censorship regime that the government created and maintained. Here is the key passage:

“Platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own discretion. Undoubtedly, the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms' moderation choices. But the Fifth Circuit, by attributing all platform decisions at least in part to the defendants, overlooked the complexities of the evidence.”

There were no “complexities in the evidence”: The evidence was clear: The FBI, the White House and other officials were specifically directing, demanding, and coercing social media companies to remove posts related to topics they wanted suppressed.

Here are some of the key issues uncovered in the discovery that the government was most interested in suppressing, in general:

• Hunter Biden's laptop
• vaccines
• Electoral fraud in the 2020 elections
• COVID policy, masking, lockdowns, vaccine mandates

These are the issues that the Supreme Court now allows the government to suppress once again.

Justice Sam Alito said in dissent: “This is one of the most important free speech cases to come before this Court in years.”

Instead of upholding the First Amendment, these six justices, Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown-Jackson, Brett Kavanaugh, and Sonia Sotomayor, upheld the suppression of speech. SHAME!

The Supreme Court procedurally prevents a citizen or state from challenging the government's ability to silence your digital speech. The practical consequence of this decision is to reopen the floodgates of social media censorship and speech suppression.

Thanks to US Senator Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry for starting this investigation! Thanks to Attorney John Sauer for his brilliant work in moving this case forward.

And special thanks to Missouri AG Andrew Bailey and Louisiana AG Liz Murrill, who led the efforts at the US Supreme Court oral arguments in March. They are true champions of freedom of expression.

Plaintiff Jim Hoft's statement below:

“Of course, we were very disappointed with today's opinion of the US Supreme Court. The Gateway Pundit has been a major target of the government's censorship complex.

It's chilling to learn that the Supreme Court believes the government can regulate the dissemination of news to the American public.

We were victims of government propaganda, and the American people suffered for it.

When we reported on the Hunter Biden laptop in October 2020 and the government's COVID agenda during the pandemic, even though we were right, we were targeted and silenced.

We are concerned that the Court's decision will allow the government to continue to use secret back-channel efforts to silence opinions not sanctioned by the rulers, and that more voices will be silenced.

We will consult with our attorneys to determine our next steps.” —Jim Hoft

The case presented three key issues for the nation's highest court to rule:

1. whether the plaintiffs had standing, which is a legal concept that means the courts allow that person to claim an injury,
2. if the government urges social media companies to de-platform, delete and remove content from citizens and specific topics such as Hunter Biden's laptop, vaccines, voter fraud in the 2020 election, COVID politics, among others, were First Amendment violations and
3. whether the terms of the trial courts' injunction, namely a court order for the government to stop suppressing speech while the case was pending, were appropriate.

The champions of free speech have said so this case is the most significant free speech case in a generation.

The Gateway Pundit Publisher Jim Hoft is one of the lead plaintiffs in the case.

Because of the way legal appeals are handled, the appeal to the Supreme Court is called that Murthy v. Missouribut the underlying case in the trial court is Missouri vs. Bidenalthough they are all legal actions arising from the same case.

On March 18, 2024, the US Supreme Court heard arguments from Louisiana Attorney General Benjamin Aguiñaga on behalf of The Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft the state of missouri, the state of Louisiana, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Aaron Kheriatyi Jill Hines (“Free Speech Plaintiffs”) in our case against the Biden Administration and an army of government agencies.

Before all the appeals, the case originally began after the states of Missouri and Louisiana, joined by The Gateway Pundit and the others mentioned above, alleged that the Biden White House and DOZENS of officials and agencies feds were conspiring with and/or coercing social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and others to censor the speech of MILLIONS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS, especially during COVID and the run up to and after the 2020 presidential election.

The evidence clearly showed, and even Mark Zuckerberg admitted it, that the FBI pressured Facebook to take down Hunter Biden's laptop story, in true fascist fashion, the feds worked or demanded d 'another way for Big Tech to police speech they disagreed with and that ran counter to government-approved party dogma.

Gateway Pundit and the other plaintiffs initially sought a preliminary injunction and were able to procure a substantial amount of evidence in support of that injunction. You may remember, probably not by chance, on July 4, 2023federal judge Terry Doughty issued an order concession Gateway Pundit, et al's motion for preliminary injunction prevents the government from working with Big Tech to censor Americans' speech while the full lawsuit is being fought (likely to be several years in the making) .

The government immediately appealed that order to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the injunction was improper and that the plaintiffs lacked adequate standing to challenge the government's action.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals substantially agreed with the bonds, and the scheming government tyrants were left with no choice but to appeal their case once more, this time to the United States Supreme Court.

Several left-wing groups shamefully sided with the government, on the side of suppressing citizens' speech., in the name of fighting “disinformation”. including Stanford University, Senator Mark Warner and a small group of far-left secretaries of state. Among those who sided with free speech were America's Frontline Doctors, Americans for Prosperity, Atlantic Legal Foundation, Charlie Kirk, Claremont Institute, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education “FIRE”, Steven Crowder, journalist Matt Taibbi .

The Chamber of Commerce presented an amicus brief opposing each of the parties.

Attorneys involved in the case told the Gateway Pundit that it was clear from oral arguments that there was a basic 3-3 split on the court, with Ketanji Brown-Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan firmly on the side of leaving that the government suppress the speech. . Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh seemed to be on the side of free speech. The case, they believed, hinged on how Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts ruled.

The appeal was filed with the Supreme Court on September 14, 2023, so it has taken more than nine months to reach a decision on this issue, prepared before the height of the 2024 election cycle, where the Biden's administration was preparing to use these expansions. powers once again to control social media to suppress news, opinions and comments from citizens they didn't like.

In March, the champions of each side presented their case in in-person oral arguments before the assembled Supreme Court.

Gateway Pundit founder and publisher Jim Hoft and Gateway Pundit attorney John Burns were present at the oral arguments.

In March, Jim Hoft interviewed fellow individual free speech plaintiffs at the Murthy v. Missouri Box.

look HERE for the interview with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

look HERE for the interview with Dr. Martin Kulldorff.

look HERE for the interview with Aaron Kheriaty.

look HERE for the interview with Ms. Jill Hines.

Each of these individuals is a spectacular defender of the First Amendment and freedom from tyranny. We hope you will take the time to watch these very inspiring interviews, which offer first-hand accounts of these exceptional Americans who have fought and continue to fight against government censorship and oppression.

FREEDOM IS NOT FREE, and neither is the struggle against tyrants. The Gateway Pundit needs your help. Please donate to the GATEWAY PUNDIT legal fund to help our fight against illegal censorship, both government and private.

We rarely ask for donations for ourselves at TGP. Please help us continue our fight for the truth.