Court Finds Kennedy Has Standing in Our Consolidated Case
As I predicted, our new co-plaintiff Robert F. Kennedy Jr. meets even the Supreme Court's stringent standing requirements, which means the injunction against the government is back in play.
As I explained in a previous post, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s companion lawsuit Kennedy v. Biden has been consolidated by the court into our Missouri v. Biden case. Based upon documents we obtained on discovery, the court recently found that Kennedy meets the Supreme Court’s stringent standing criteria. We only need one co-plaintiff with standing to bring the case and the petition for the injunction. So the injunction is back in play, and we will likely find ourselves at the Supreme Court again in a few months. Unless SCOTUS invents another technicality on which to temporize, they will be forced to rule on the merits of the evidence against the government, which we believe is overwhelming.
On the issue of Kennedy’s standing, U.S. District Court judge Terry Doughty last week ruled: “There is not much dispute that both Kennedy and CHD [Kennedy’s nonprofit Children’s Health Defense] were specifically targeted by the White House, the Office of Surgeon General, and CISA, and the content of Kennedy and CHD were suppressed. Therefore, Kennedy must now show a substantial risk that in the near future, at least one platform will restrict the speech of Kennedy in response to the actions of one Government Defendant.” Citing evidence we uncovered in Missouri v. Biden, Doughty explained: “The Court finds that Kennedy is likely to succeed on his claim that suppression of content posted was caused by actions of Government Defendants, and there is a substantial risk that he will suffer similar injury in the near future.”
As reported in The Kennedy Beacon Substack:
The latest ruling is not only significant for Kennedy but for the future of online speech. In June of this year, the Supreme Court ruled that the state attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana did not have standing to bring their case on government directed mass censorship. Now that Kennedy and the CHD have been found to have standing in the matter, the Supreme Court will likely have an opportunity to judge the issue on its merits rather than on a technicality as it did when making its standing ruling on an injunction in June.
If Kennedy and his co-plaintiffs are able to demonstrate to judges that the Biden administration’s intrusion into the actions of major social media companies resulted in censorship, the country will be one step closer to a major legal ruling guaranteeing freedom to speak online without the censorious interference of the federal government.
In related news, Kennedy announced Friday that he is suspending his presidential campaign. While he has deep disagreements with Trump on several issues, he is endorsing Trump’s candidacy to advance the key issues on which they have substantial agreements—including stopping government censorship and propaganda. His 48-minute speech announcing this decision was an extraordinary moment in American politics and is worth watching. In addition to discussing the issue of government censorship, which seriously hamstrung his ability to campaign, Kennedy’s remarks focus also on the root causes of the current epidemic of chronic disease in the United States.
While there is online buzz that Trump may tap Kennedy as Attorney General, I anticipate if Trump is elected he will appoint Kennedy to his cabinet as Secretary of Health and Human Services, a department which includes the CDC, FDA, and NIH. This could prove a welcome opportunity for the reform of our public health agencies. I am currently working with a team of policy analysts and health freedom advocates on concrete policy proposals for just such reforms, and will keep you posted on our progress with that project.
As I'm sure you know, the Dark Horse YouTube (Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying) was demonetized for discussing ivermectin, creating a financial harm. Whatever the drug's effectiveness for COVID, should government agencies have the power to influence social media to shut down debate and impose monetary penalty? Does the government have special knowledge to conclude when science is settled?
The theory of continental drift was once considered baseless and wrongheaded until marine studies showed the magnetic orientation rocks laid down in spreading zones correlated neatly with reversals of the Earth's polarity. If bureaucrats were in charge, they would stifle every such surprising paradigm shift in science because all such shifts violate the accepted, popular model. Would questioning the famous USDA "food pyramid" (influenced by industry) have been demonetized? What about settled knowledge of putting a raw steak on a black eye?
Bureaucrats appointed by politicians might be the worst and most dangerous possible arbiters of truth one can imagine. Science is not a popularity contest and, despite the phrase "scientific consensus," even scientists end up with egg on their faces.
Immensely encouraging to learn this. Hopefully, the Supreme Court justices sense the growing tidal wave. Let Freedom Reign!