Judge ordered discovery in Biden administration social media collusion lawsuit.

Biden and high-ranking employees of his administration are accused by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri of conspiring with Meta, Twitter, and YouTube to censor “disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social medial platforms.” 

According to a report by Just The News, a suit was filed in May and those involved have to turn documents over and answer questions within the next 20 days for discovery in the suit.

Judge Terry Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana decided on Tuesday that the discovery procedure has “good cause” and established a timeline with specified dates for depositions.

“In May, Missouri and Louisiana filed a landmark lawsuit against top-ranking Biden Administration officials for allegedly colluding with social media giants to suppress freedom of speech on a number of topics including the origins of COVID-19, the efficacy of masks, and election integrity,” Missouri Republican Attorney General Eric Schmitt, said in a statement.

“Today, the Court granted our motion for discovery, paving the way for my office to gather important documents to get to the bottom of that alleged collusion. This is a huge development.”

The social media giants are accused of labeling content as “misinformation” and “disinformation” in the four-count lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, the censorship constitutes a government action and goes against the First Amendment’s guarantee of free expression.

The lawsuit claims that the Departments of Health and Human Services and Homeland Security (DHS) violated the Administrative Procedure Act and that the federal government’s actions went beyond their legal power.

The administration has argued the states can’t meet an “injury in fact” standard saying “it suffered ‘an invasion of a legally protected interest’ that is ‘concrete,’ ‘particularized,’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’”

Defense for the Biden administration also contended that there wasn’t a connection between the government’s alleged conduct and the states’ alleged injuries, and that the states can’t show how the court will deliver justice for an alleged “injury in fact.”