A federal appeals court appeared hesitant to lift a lower court ruling on Thursday limiting the Biden administration's ability to work with social media companies on content moderation, prompting one judge to make a "mob" analogy.

A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit heard arguments in the administration's appeal of a federal district court judge's surprise July 4 preliminary injunction, which found the federal government erred when it asked Big Tech social media companies to suppress certain political views.

INFLATION TICKED UP TO 3.2% IN JULY IN SETBACK FOR BIDEN AND FED

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty ruled in favor of Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, who alleged that conservative speech had been censored on social media platforms, especially speech related to the pandemic, describing it as "Orwellian." The government appealed the decision, and arguments took place Thursday before three judges, Edith Clement, Jennifer Elrod, and Don Willett, all appointees of Republican presidents.

Elrod, an appointee of then-President George W. Bush, made a striking analogy to mob behavior but clarified she wasn't equating the government to "anybody in illegal organized crime."

“I’m certainly not equating the federal government to this, but this is an analogy ... probably an inapt analogy, so, if you’ll excuse me, like if somebody is in these movies that we see with the mob or something, they don’t say and spell out things, but they have these ongoing relationships and they never actually say, ‘Go do this or else you’re going to have this consequence,’" Elrod said. "But everybody just knows — and I’m certainly not equating the federal government with anybody in illegal organized crime — but there are certain relationships that people know things without always saying the ‘or else.'"

The administration denies forcing social media companies to take down online posts. Justice Department lawyers also say Doughty's order hinders the federal government's ability to deal with misinformation in emergencies and violates the government's own right to free speech.

Doughty wrote that the "Orwellian" efforts by the government started in 2019 with officials asking social media companies such as Alphabet-owned YouTube, Meta's Facebook platform, and Twitter, now known as X, to minimize the spread of posts they considered to be misinformation.

Dean John Sauer, an attorney for the states, spoke quickly during his 30 minutes and asserted that the "right to listen" is just as important as the "right to speak.

"And these plaintiffs assert the right to listen. They assert the right to listen to virtually every one of the speakers that was silenced by federal censorship in this case.”

Sauer also explained in significant detail the plaintiffs' view that the FBI engaged in "deception."

In response to a question from Clement asking if "the activity of the FBI [was] as egregious as the activity of the White House," Sauer said, "They're different ... the FBI engaged in deception." He then detailed the knowledge the FBI withheld from social media companies about the authenticity of Hunter Biden's laptop.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Counsel for the government asked the panel to reverse Doughty's order, noting that if it decides not to, they would request a 10-day stay of that decision to provide time for appeal to the Supreme Court.

Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.