Sometimes, the U.S. Supreme Court will schedule arguments to create a “theme” day.  In other words, the Court will schedule two cases which are technically unrelated but involve similar issues.  By hearing arguments in the two cases back-to-back, the Justices get two factually different pictures of conduct to point out some of the different ways that the issue might arise and, hopefully, can get some input through both cases on how a particular test for judging whether conduct crossed the line would play out.

This week, we had one of those theme days involving when governmental conduct indirectly infringes on the First Amendment.  The first case, Murthy, Surgeon General, vs. Missouri, arises from the efforts of the Surgeon General’s Office to talk with social media companies about posts containing medically harmful information related to COVID.  The nutty Attorney Generals from Louisiana and Missouri (which at that time was now Senator Eric Schmitt) filed a lawsuit in front of a handpicked judge in the Western District of Louisiana seeking an injunction barring all communications between federal officials and social media companies.  That “judge” granted that request.  The Fifth Circuit narrowed the injunction somewhat but left it substantially intact.   The other case, National Rifle Association vs. Vullo, involves a state financial services regulator trying to persuade regulated entities (banks and insurance companies) that they should stop doing business with the NRA.

What seems to be clear from the arguments in these two cases is that the Supreme Court is likely to make a distinction between persuasion and coercion.  In asking questions, several justices fell back on their own executive branch experience.  In traditional media, it is not unusual for reporters to call government officials asking for comments on a potential story.  In some cases, the story is one that, for a variety of reasons, the government official might prefer that the story not get published (or at least that certain details not run).  Sometimes those reasons are good reasons like in a murder investigation somebody might have leaked a key detail from the crime scene to a reporter which the police were intending to use as a “false confession check” (on the theory that only the killer would know that detail so any nut coming in to take credit for something they did not do would get that detail wrong).  But those reasons might not be strong enough for the government to seek a court order preventing publication.  So the government will try to convince the news media that it would be best if that information was not included in the story.  In making this request, the government might offer a “comp” like an exclusive interview with the police chief on some other topic.  It seems like, in the Murthy case, the Supreme Court is likely to slap the lower court and the state AGs hard for what is really a legally meritless argument.  There is really nothing here suggesting that these claims involve anything beyond routine attempts to persuade media to go with the official story.  And the First Amendment does not prohibit the government from trying to convince publishers to do the right thing. Continue Reading...