The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has agreed to take up a case that would have an impact on Gov. Katie Hobbs’ past censorship activities.
The case, Murthy v. Missouri, focuses on the alleged coordinated campaign by government officials and social media companies to suppress and censor certain speech on major public issues, specifically the COVID-19 lab leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story. Hobbs, while secretary of state and during her gubernatorial campaign, coordinated with social media companies to remove certain speech online.
Hobbs’ then-chief of staff and former assistant secretary of state, Allie Bones, said in a statement prior to Hobbs’ inauguration that it was the job of governments to purge the public square of perceived misinformation and disinformation.
“One of the ways we [make sure that voters are informed] is by working to counter disinformation online that can confuse voters,” stated Bones. “This is yet another example of conspiracy theorists trying to create chaos and confusion by casting doubt on our election system. It’s unfair to Arizona voters and it’s harmful to our democracy.”
Although SCOTUS accepted consideration of Murthy v. Missouri, they didn’t accept a lower court’s injunction preventing government officials from continuing their coordination with social media companies to moderate online speech. Justices John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson together granted the Biden administration’s petition to remove the injunction, effectively permitting the government to engage in censorship online.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the SCOTUS majority’s suspension of the injunction was “disturbing,” and that any censorship of private speech is antithetical to democracy. Alito dismissed the Biden administration’s argument that an injunction against coordinating with social media companies to control citizens’ speech was the same as preventing government officials from speaking on a matter.
“The injunction applies only when the Government crosses the line and begins to coerce or control others’ exercise of their free-speech rights,” said Alito. “Does the Government think that the First Amendment allows Executive Branch officials to engage in such conduct? Does it have plans for this to occur between now and the time when the case is decided?”
Alito further declared that SCOTUS had effectively ruled to allow the Biden administration to continue with its First Amendment violations identified by the lower courts.
“At this time in the history of our country, what the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news,” said Alito. “That is most unfortunate.”
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined Alito in his dissent.
Gov. Hobbs issued an emergency heat declaration with an expired enforcement date the day after additional emails revealing her coordinated censorship efforts were released. Hobbs dismissed the emails as a “sideshow,” but didn’t deny allegations of maintaining unscrupulous relationships with major social media companies.
Hobbs’ past coordination with social media companies prompted the House to establish an interim ad hoc committee on Oversight, Accountability, and Big Tech. The committee first convened in September and met once more earlier this month.
While SCOTUS contemplates the case, Hobbs already has defense provided by the state’s chief legal officer.
In August, Attorney General Kris Mayes joined a 21-state coalition of Democratic attorneys general opposing the then-active federal injunction. Mayes declared that control over free speech is paramount to public safety, implying that governmental interest in safety outweighs the constitutional right of free speech.
“Social media companies and government officials must have open communication in order to ensure the safety of Americans online,” said Mayes. “A pillar of the U.S. government is to ensure the safety and wellbeing of its citizens. The lower court’s decision impedes on this protection and means federal, state and local officials cannot contact social media companies about dangerous online content.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A long-awaited elections challenge from the 2022 political cycle has finally been filed.
On Tuesday, 2022 Republican nominee for Arizona Attorney General, Abraham Hamadeh, filed an Appeal and Motion to Expedite in the Arizona Court of Appeals.
In a statement Tuesday night, Hamadeh said, “My legal team has just filed our Appeal on our election challenge and Motion to Expedite. Arizonans deserve to have their lawfully elected Attorney General to hold that office, and our state constitution demands it. With the numerous irregularities in the election, the initial trial, and numerous delays at the trial court, it’s long overdue that the judiciary expedite and take our claims seriously that thousands of lawful votes remain uncounted in the closest election in Arizona with the biggest recount discrepancy in history.”
The Arizona Attorney General’s race was decided late in 2022 – and long after the November General Election – with Democrat Kris Mayes over Hamadeh by 280 votes, triggering the Republican’s election challenges.
Hamadeh’s efforts to bring transparency to his razor-thin election result have continued long after his Democrat opponent, Kris Mayes, took office in January. Mayes has continued to show little public interest in the case, allowing her attorneys to handle matters in the courtroom while she continues to revamp the Arizona Attorney General’s Office from the policies of her predecessor, Republican Mark Brnovich.
The comments from Hamadeh also touched on his thoughts regarding the state of election integrity across Arizona and the country – especially how this issue pertained to his specific case. He shared, “Our democracy demands honesty, transparency, and accountability in order to rebuild the trust that so many Arizonans have lost in our elections. Our case seeks to enfranchise over 9,000 voters who voted on Election Day and did their part to have a say in their government. Their constitutional right to vote matters and their votes deserve to be counted.”
The Republican challenger promised a continued fight in court “to ensure that the will of the people is honored, and that our laws are upheld.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Democratic leadership and Biden officials split with their go-to election lawyer, Marc Elias; a 2021 Supreme Court loss from Arizona served as a major catalyst for the breakup. In that case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the court effectively gutted the federal Voting Rights Act by upholding Arizona’s restrictions on out-of-precinct voting and ballot harvesting.
Although Elias and Democratic leaders parted ways in April, it wasn’t until this past week that details of the split came to light.
According to unnamed sources who spoke with Axios, Elias went rogue in the Biden administration’s eyes: filing lawsuits without notice or consent, with Biden leaders only learning of them via social media or mainstream reporting; racking up large bills, such as the $20+ million payout from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Biden campaign for defending the 65 lawsuits challenging the 2020 election results; and public criticism of a bipartisan election bill crafted by key Biden leadership and Democrats.
Elias’ tactics also differed from the reported desires of Biden leadership. While Elias viewed all fights as worth taking up, Biden officials wanted to be more selective.
Elias was a longtime legal bulldog for the DNC. In 2016, Elias served as general counsel for the 2016 campaign of presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Following Clinton’s loss, Elias served as a principal player in the Russiagate scandal. As Clinton’s general counsel, Elias billed for his hire of the opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, that created the Steele dossier: the Russian collusion allegations against former President Donald Trump leaked to Buzzfeed ten days before Trump’s inauguration that became a shadow over Trump’s entire presidency.
In 2020, Elias’ work resulted in key reforms to election law that lent to Democratic victories and the defense of challenges to President Joe Biden’s election.
As AZ Free News reported last November, Elias’ firm launched in 2021, Elias Law Group, was a listed address for the Black Lives Matter headquarters. The firm stated in the latest BLM’s IRS filing that it maintains all of BLM’s books and records. According to Federal Elections Commission (FEC) records, the Black Lives Matter PAC paid Elias’ firm over $14,800 from January to December of last year. Per their latest FEC filing on Monday, BLM has paid Elias’ firm nearly $3,000 so far this year.
One of the other main recipients of the BLM PAC’s disbursements is Premier Political Compliance founded and led by the former compliance director Christine Neville of the Perkins Coie firm, where Elias served as partner prior to launching his own firm. Both Neville and Elias departed Perkins Coie to launch their respective firms in 2021.
Elias has increasingly positioned himself as a public figure on the topic of election law and, as evident by working with BLM, other social issues. He has appeared in numerous interviews and maintained a consistent social media presence.
Last year, however, Elias deleted all tweets prior to April 4 without explanation. Around that time, federal investigators began to close in on those behind Russiagate. About a month before Elias purged his Twitter, the FEC fined the DNC and Clinton $113,000 for misrepresenting payments for opposition research used to create Russiagate.
Biden’s former chief of staff and re-election campaign leader, Ron Klain, said that relations between Elias and Biden leaders remain amicable despite the split.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The Scottsdale legal nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) won a religious freedom case at the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
SCOTUS ruled 6-3 at the end of June in 303 Creative v. Elenis against Colorado’s anti-discrimination law, Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), as unconstitutional. The law would prohibit a Christian wedding website designer from refusing to create a same-sex wedding website.
The plaintiff, Lorie Smith, holds the Christian belief that marriage exists only between one man and one woman, and contests against the possibility that she either must produce content that “contradicts Biblical truth,” such as same-sex marriages, or cease business.
Ultimately, SCOTUS determined in a majority opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch that Smith’s creative expression constituted speech and that CADA therefore violated the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.
“Ms. Smith’s websites will express and communicate ideas — namely, those that ‘celebrate and promote the couple’s wedding and unique love story’ and those ‘celebrat[e] and promot[e]’ what Ms. Smith understands to be a marriage,” stated Gorsuch.
"This is a victory not just for me, but for all of us. Whether you share my beliefs or disagree with them, free speech is for everyone. And the government shouldn’t force anyone to say something they don’t believe. The Court’s decision means we are all more free today than we… pic.twitter.com/wXHqZgAWL2
— Alliance Defending Freedom (@ADFLegal) June 30, 2023
Gorsuch further criticized CADA for its fullest possible outcome: compelling speech of all manners and kinds from any commissioned person if their customer belongs to a CADA-protected class.
“Under Colorado’s logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic — no matter the message — if the topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected trait,” said Gorsuch. “Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty. The Court’s precedents recognize the First Amendment tolerates none of that.”
Smith does have LGBTQ clients; however, Smith won’t create content that runs counter to her beliefs.
After the SCOTUS ruling, ADF CEO and lead counsel Kristen Waggoner stated that differences of beliefs don’t constitute discrimination.
“Disagreement isn’t discrimination, and the government can’t mislabel speech as discrimination to censor it,” said Waggoner. “As the court highlighted, her decisions to create speech always turn on what message is requested, never on who requests it. [T]he government has never needed to compel speech to ensure access to goods and services.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has rightly reaffirmed that the government can’t force Americans to say things they don’t believe. The court reiterated that it’s unconstitutional for the state to eliminate from the public square ideas it dislikes, including the belief that marriage is the… https://t.co/9BtiPg0skn
Following the ruling, critics alleged that Smith fabricated a request for a same-sex wedding website after a news article insinuated she did. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser also derided Smith’s complaint as “a made-up case without the benefit of any real facts or customers.” ADF and Smith rejected those claims.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Wednesday, the 56th Arizona Legislature filed an Emergency Application to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan for a Vacatur of the Stay Pending Appeal Issued Sua Sponte by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, involving the Biden Administration’s 2021 COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal employees and contractors. Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court “reversed the district court’s order granting a permanent injunction and dissolved the President’s ‘Contractor Mandate’ Executive Order requiring federal contractors who worked on or in connection with federal government projects to be vaccinated against COVID-19.” The Legislature’s application seeks to reinstate that injunction, arguing that “because the Federal Respondents did not request a stay below, the Ninth Circuit overreached when it disturbed the status quo and stayed the district court’s injunction sua sponte.”
Senate President Warren Petersen issued the following statement to announce the filing spearheaded by him and House of Representatives Speaker Ben Toma: “We will not allow President Biden to blatantly undermine the will of the Arizona State Legislature in the protections we’ve provided for our citizens to prevent a COVID-19 vaccine mandate from dictating employment opportunities. The Biden Administration has made it clear that they are against any Americans who push back against this vaccine and will abuse their powers in order to force compliance as a stipulation of doing business with the federal government. Arizona will not tolerate this gross government overreach and intrusion of individual liberties. The Legislature’s intervention in this lawsuit against President Biden is critical in protecting the sovereignty of our state and the rights of all Arizonans.”
The case began as Brnovich v Biden, when former Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed the first lawsuit in the nation against the president’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates. At the time, Brnovich said that “the federal government cannot force people to get the COVID-19 vaccine,” and that “the Biden Administration is once again flouting our laws and precedents to push their radical agenda.” Brnovich’s suit was heard before U.S. District Court Judge Michael Liburdi, who later, in February 2022, issued a permanent injunction against the president’s mandate for federal contractors.
The Legislature’s application makes the case that this mandate is an abuse of President Biden’s authority, writing, “The Contractor Mandate is an unprecedented claim of presidential authority. Before September 2021, the federal government had never mandated vaccinations for the domestic civilian populace. Even as smallpox, polio, and influenza spread throughout the country, vaccine mandates were always viewed as an exercise of the general police power to be exercised by duly elected state legislatures and subdivisions of the States. See generally Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174, 176 (1922). Throughout those crises and the COVID-19 pandemic, even Congress with the full authority of Article I—has never mandated vaccination for anyone other than government personnel serving overseas or the military.”
The Arizona Senate Democrats Caucus quickly made it clear that its members were not supportive of this action taken by the Republican leaders, tweeting: “ARIZONA: The @AZSenateGOP changed the Senate rules in January 2023 to ensure that “The President is authorized to bring or assert in any forum on behalf of the Senate any claim or right arising out of any injury to the Senate’s powers or duties under the constitution or laws of this state.” Senate Democrats DO NOT support this & were not consulted about this frivolous use of state funds to take shots are our federal government. The COVID-19 vaccine is safe and saved countless American lives. This is wasteful and could have severe consequences.”
🚨 ARIZONA: The @AZSenateGOP changed the Senate rules in January 2023 to ensure that "The President is authorized to bring or assert in any forum on behalf of the Senate any claim or right arising out of any injury to the Senate's powers or duties under the constitution or laws… https://t.co/7PBGdfRMel
— Arizona Senate Democrats (@AZSenateDems) April 26, 2023
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
