A federal appeals court on Friday significantly weakened a lower court’s order restricting the Biden administration’s communications with social media companies about controversial content on COVID-19 and other issues.

The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans told the White House on Friday

S

surgeon

G

Eneral, the Centers for Disease Control and the FBI cannot force social media platforms to remove posts the government doesn’t like.

But the court threw broader language into an order that a Louisiana-based federal judge issued on July 4, effectively blocking multiple government agencies from contacting platforms like Facebook and contents.

Even the appeals court’s mitigated order does not take effect immediately. The government has ten days to request a review by the Supreme Court.

Friday evening’s ruling came in a lawsuit filed in northeastern Louisiana that accused government officials of forcing platforms to remove content under the threat of possible antitrust actions or changes in federal law that shield them from lawsuits over the posts of their users.

COVID-19 vaccines, the FBI’s handling of a laptop belonging to President Biden’s son Hunter and allegations of election fraud were among the topics addressed in the lawsuit, which accused the administration of using regulatory threats measures to suppress conservative views.

The states of Missouri and Louisiana filed the lawsuit, along with a conservative website owner and four people who opposed the administration’s COVID-19 policies.

In a post on X, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry called Friday’s ruling a major victory over censorship.

In an unsigned 75-page opinion, three 5th Circuit judges agreed with plaintiffs that the government violated the First Amendment by sometimes threatening social media platforms with antitrust actions or changes to the law that shield them from liability.

But the court struck down much of U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s broad July 4 ruling, saying mere encouragement to remove content does not always cross a constitutional line.

To begin with, it is self-evident that an injunction is overbroad if it prohibits a defendant from engaging in legal conduct. Nine out of ten interim bans risk doing just that. In addition, many of the committees are ambiguous and therefore unnecessary, according to Friday’s ruling.

The ruling also removed some agencies from the order: the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency and the State Department.

The case was heard by Judges Jennifer Walker Elrod and Edith Brown Clement, nominated by former President George W. Bush; and Don Willett, nominated by the former president

Trump. Doughty was nominated by Trump to the federal bench.