Supreme Court Orders Meta to Respond to CHD Petition in Censorship Case
The U.S. Supreme Court asked Meta to respond to a petition filed by CHD asking the court to hear its case against the social media giant over its collusion with government officials.
The U.S. Supreme Court last week asked Meta to respond to a petition filed by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) asking the court to hear its case against the social media giant over its collusion with government officials to censor CHD content on Facebook.
In January, CHD petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case, which had been rejected in the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Meta waived its right to file a response to CHD’s petition, but in a letter to the company’s attorneys, the court directed Meta to file a reply by March 31.
Commenting on the news, CHD CEO Mary Holland told The Defender:
“We see this as a good sign. When we asked the Supreme Court to hear our case, Meta declined to file a reply, even though it had the right to do so. This latest move by the Supreme Court may delay the court’s final decision on whether it will hear our case, but it also suggests the court has questions that it believes Meta should address.”
CHD sued Facebook in November 2020, alleging Biden administration officials targeted the organization and its then-chairman Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Facebook cooperated by censoring CHD’s speech — particularly speech related to vaccines and COVID-19 — that should have been protected under the First Amendment.
Facebook first took action against CHD in May 2019, removing or restricting CHD posts. Censored posts included data on the risks of COVID-19 vaccines, remdesivir, and ventilation, as well as having the temerity to raise the benefits of natural immunity and alternative treatment with ivermectin and other protocols.
In August 2022, Facebook, rebranded in 2021 as Meta, deplatformed CHD from Facebook and Instagram and has yet to reinstate the accounts.
On Aug. 9, 2024, the 9th Circuit ruled against CHD.
CHD General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg said, “Since this case was originally filed, and even since the 9th Circuit issued its decision, more and more information has come to light regarding Meta’s censorship activities, including some telling statements by Meta Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg.”
She added:
“That the U.S. Supreme Court has now required Meta to respond seems a hopeful sign that the court is taking our petition seriously and that we also will get a chance to respond to Meta’s submission.”
Zuckerberg admitted caving to government censorship demands
CHD’s lawsuit against Meta also named “fact-checking” firms Science Feedback, and the Poynter Institute and its PolitiFact website.
On Jan. 27 — less than 24 hours after CHD asked the Supreme Court to hear its case — Zuckerberg announced the company was ending its third-party “fact-checking” program.
CHD launched a petition in January asking Zuckerberg to restore its Facebook and Instagram accounts. The petition has 20,804 signatures.
When Zuckerberg announced he was ending the company’s third-party fact-checking program, he admitted that during the pandemic, government officials pressured — as he told Joe Rogan, “would call up our team and, like, scream at them and curse” at them — Facebook to censor content that was factually accurate but didn’t align with the official government narrative.
Now, he says, his company is committed to “restoring free expression.”
After Zuckerberg made his public comments, CHD filed a letter with the Supreme Court, arguing that Zuckerberg’s public comments contradicted its statements to the lower courts that its decisions to censor CHD had been “internal decisions” and the White House’s actions hadn’t changed Meta’s behavior.
Attorney Roger Teich, who is representing CHD in its case against Meta, said he’s “grateful” the court has taken this latest step, given the importance of the issues CHD raised about Meta’s conflicting statements.
“Our state-action allegations cut across easy political characterizations,” Teich said. “Of course, Zuckerberg’s kowtowing to the new administration while continuing to censor CHD may also be a factor that gives us perhaps a fighting chance that the Court may want to review this issue.”
National healthcare and constitutional practice attorney Rick Jaffe, who is not involved in the case but represents CHD in other cases, said, “I view the order to the respondents to file a response despite their waiver as a positive indication. It seems that some members think enough of the petition that they want to hear the other side.”
“My speculation is that Zuckerberg’s recent admissions, adeptly pointed out by Roger Teich’s supplemental letter to the Court, made some members want a response from Meta,” he added.
In an op-ed published in January by RealClear Politics and the New York Post, Holland said the issues at stake in the case affect the entire American public.
She wrote:
“Ultimately, this debate is not about any one group or individual but all of us. How many people suffered or lost their lives because they didn’t have access to information that could have helped them make better-informed decisions about their health?
“The American public is better served with more information rather than less, especially when it is grounded on data-based scientific information. People are smart enough to make up their own minds.”
Related articles in The Defender
It's difficult to know what the SC will do as they don't seem to uphold the Constitution and rule of law in many of their rulings. However, I take it as an encouraging sign that at least they have taken note of the additional glaring evidence of collusion between the govt. and FB to eliminate freedom of speech. That should be considered unconstitutional by the SC as it is a clear violation of the First Ammendment. I will hope for the best!