The Supreme Court rejected independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s request to have his lawsuit against the federal government included in a case addressing whether Big Tech and the federal government colluded to censor political speech.
The Supreme Court issued an order declining Kennedy's request to combine his suit, which Kennedy had filed on the state level in Louisiana, with the lawsuit Murthy v. Missouri to get a chance to argue his case before the justices when it was heard in early 2024. Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the court's decline, arguing that the 2024 presidential campaign will be well underway by the time Kennedy's state-level case is heard.
SHADOW OF DOUBT: ARE TRUMP CANDIDATES CHANGING THEIR ELECTION DENIAL TUNE HEADING INTO 2024?
"Our democratic form of government is undermined if Government officials prevent a candidate for high office from communicating with voters, and such efforts are especially dangerous when the officials engaging in such conduct are answerable to a rival candidate," Alito wrote in the dissent. "I would allow him to intervene to ensure that we can reach the merits of respondents' claims and to prevent the irreparable loss of his First Amendment rights."
The Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana filed a suit against the Biden administration in 2021, contending that it violated the First Amendment by colluding with Meta, Twitter, now X, and YouTube to engage in censorship of speech related to COVID-19 and the Hunter Biden laptop story. The initial injunction from the Western District of Louisiana froze conversations between Big Tech and the government, although the high court stayed the injunction to consider the arguments.
The suit will deal specifically with whether the communications between Big Tech and the Biden administration could be considered "jawboning," or a situation in which a government employee encourages, coerces, or compels another party to comply with a request without using their respective legislative, judicial, or regulatory powers.
Kennedy attempted to attach himself to Murthy v. Missouri by arguing that the other plaintiffs in the original suit considered by the court's "standing," or the legal right to sue, was contested. Adding him to the suit would ensure at least one plaintiff had standing. The two state attorneys opposed the maneuver, noting that it was filed too late and did not show a legal interest not already reflected in the states' suit.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
"The Kennedy Plaintiffs provide no adequate justification for attempting to intervene at a time that would delay proceedings well underway, such as changes in factual circumstances or legal developments," the attorneys general wrote in their response.
Kennedy is known for being a skeptic of the COVID-19 vaccines and has regularly been accused of spreading misinformation about them. He attempted to run as a Democratic presidential candidate in 2024 but shifted to running as an independent in October.