Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 128-1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 1 of 90 PageID #:
`4863
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`The State of Missouri, et al.,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., in his official
`capacity as President of the United States of
`America, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Civil Action No. 22-cv-1213
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER
`JURISDICTION AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 128-1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 2 of 90 PageID #:
`4864
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................... 5
`
`I.
`
`Factual Background...................................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Social media companies have long sought to address “misinformation” on their
`platforms. ......................................................................................................... 5
`
`Executive branch officials under the past two administrations have communicated
`with social media companies about promoting accurate information and the harms
`of misinformation online. .................................................................................. 7
`
`The Biden Administration has encouraged social media companies to exercise
`their discretion to take action against misinformation on their platforms.............. 9
`
`Officials from both political parties have explored potential reforms to § 230(c).
`....................................................................................................................... 10
`
`II.
`
`The Present Lawsuit ................................................................................................... 12
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................... 15
`
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................ 16
`
`I.
`
`The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims. .............................. 16
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring any of their claims. ......................... 16
`
`i.
`
`Plaintiffs do not identify an injury to the States that satisfies Article III. 18
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Parens Patriae standing is unavailable against the Federal
`Government. ............................................................................ 18
`
`The States fail to allege any direct injury to their interests
`as States. .................................................................................. 22
`
`Plaintiffs do not identify an injury to the individual Plaintiffs that satisfies
`Article III. ........................................................................................... 31
`
`Plaintiffs do not allege any injury that is traceable to the conduct of
`Defendants as opposed to third-party social media companies not before
`this Court............................................................................................. 32
`
`Plaintiffs do not allege injuries that would be redressed by th e sweeping
`injunctive relief they seek..................................................................... 39
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 128-1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 3 of 90 PageID #:
`4865
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs do not identify a waiver of sovereign immunity for any of their claims
`against the Agency Defendants. ....................................................................... 43
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`All claims against the Agency Defendants must be dismissed because
`Plaintiffs do not identify any “agency action” that would waive sovereign
`immunity. ............................................................................................ 45
`
`The APA claims against the Agency Defendants should be dismissed
`because Plaintiffs do not identify a “final agency action.” ..................... 48
`
`II.
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims all fail on the merits. ........................................................................ 49
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs fail to state a plausible First Amendment claim against any of the
`Defendants...................................................................................................... 49
`
`i.
`
`Plaintiffs fail to make a plausible allegation of coercion or a similar degree
`of encouragement................................................................................. 51
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that statements by federal
`officials in email correspondence with social media
`companies are coercive. ............................................................ 53
`
`No Defendant is plausibly alleged to have made an
`enforceable threat, regulatory or otherwise, based on a
`platform’s content moderation choice. ....................................... 58
`
`The government speech doctrine requires rejection of
`Plaintiffs’ coercion theory based on public policy
`statements. ............................................................................... 63
`
`Plaintiffs fail to allege that any Defendant specifically directed any social
`media company to take any specific action against a post by any Plaintiff
`or resident of a Plaintiff State. .............................................................. 64
`
`The labels Plaintiffs attach to Defendants’ alleged conduct are also
`inadequate to plausibly allege joint “state action.”................................. 70
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`iv. Mere discussion of misinformation between federal agencies, or with
`social media companies, does not constitute “coercion” or “joint action”
`amounting to state action...................................................................... 72
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs fail to state plausible “ultra vires” claims. .......................................... 72
`
`Plaintiffs fail to state plausible APA claims against the Agency Defendants. ..... 73
`
`III.
`
`The separation of powers doctrine independently requires dismissal of the President from
`this action. ................................................................................................................. 75
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 76
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 128-1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 4 of 90 PageID #:
`4866
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Action for Children’s Television v. FCC,
`59 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................................ 59
`
`Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Tex. v. United States,
`757 F.3d 484 (5th Cir. 2014) ....................................................................................... passim
`
`Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez,
`458 U.S. 592 (1982).................................................................................................... passim
`
`Allen v. Wright,
`468 U.S. 737 (1984), abrogated on other grounds by
`Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014).................. 17, 48
`
`Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan,
`526 U.S. 40 (1999)...................................................................................................... passim
`
`Arizona v. Biden,
`40 F.4th 375 (6th Cir. 2022) ......................................................................................... 29, 30
`
`Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc.,
`575 U.S. 320 (2015)........................................................................................................... 74
`
`ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish,
`490 U.S. 605 (1989)..................................................................................................... 22, 40
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009).................................................................................................... passim
`
`Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons v. Schiff,
`518 F. Supp. 3d 505 (D.D.C. 2021), aff’d 23 F.4th 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2022) ........... 26, 35, 36, 41
`
`Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons v. Schiff,
`23 F.4th 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2022) .......................................................................... 26, 35, 36, 38
`
`Atkinson v. Meta Platforms, Inc.,
`No. 20-17489, 2021 WL 5447022 (9th Cir. Nov. 22, 2021) ................................................. 67
`
`Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan,
`372 U.S. 58 (1963)....................................................................................................... 58, 59
`
`Barnes v. Lehman,
`861 F.2d 1383 (5th Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................... 52, 64
`
`Baur v. Veneman,
`352 F.3d 625 (2d Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................... 26
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 128-1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 5 of 90 PageID #:
`4867
`
`
`
`Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys. v. Southworth,
`529 U. S. 217 (2000).......................................................................................................... 62
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007)................................................................................................16, 38, 67
`
`Bennett v. Spear,
`520 U.S. 154 (1997)..................................................................................................... 33, 48
`
`Biden v. Knight First Amend. Inst. of Columbia Univ.,
`141 S. Ct. 1220 (2021), remanded, 2021 WL 5548367 (2d Cir. May 26, 2021) .................... 27
`
`Blum v. Yaretsky,
`457 U.S. 991 (1982).................................................................................................... passim
`
`Brackeen v. Haaland,
`994 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. granted, 142 S. Ct. 1205 (2022)............................... 17, 19
`
`California v. Texas,
`141 S. Ct. 2104 (2021) ................................................................................................. 30, 40
`
`Cambranis v. Blinken,
`994 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2021) .............................................................................................. 45
`
`Changizi v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs.,
`--- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2022 WL 1423176 (S.D. Ohio May 5, 2022),
`appeal filed, No. 22-3573 (6th Cir. June 30, 2022) ....................................................... passim
`
`Chapman v. Tristar Prods., Inc.,
`940 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2019) .............................................................................................. 21
`
`Chi. & S. Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S. S. Corp.,
`333 U.S. 103 (1948)........................................................................................................... 75
`
`Children’s Health Def. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`546 F. Supp. 3d 909 (N.D. Cal. 2021), appeal filed sub nom.,
`Children’s Health Def. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 21-16210 (9th Cir. July 21, 2021)... 51, 68
`
`City of L.A. v. Lyons,
`461 U.S. 95 (1983)....................................................................................................... 17, 32
`
`City of N.Y. v. U.S. Dep’t of Def.,
`913 F.3d 423 (4th Cir. 2019) .............................................................................................. 47
`
`Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA,
`568 U.S. 398 (2013).................................................................................................... passim
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 128-1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 6 of 90 PageID #:
`4868
`
`
`
`Dalton v. Specter,
`511 U.S. 462 (1994)........................................................................................................... 75
`
`Danos v. Jones,
`652 F.3d 577 (5th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................................. 72
`
`Davis v. Fed. Election Comm’n,
`554 U.S. 724 (2008)........................................................................................................... 22
`
`Dep’t of Com. v. New York,
`139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019) ....................................................................................................... 30
`
`Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan,
`484 U.S. 518 (1988)........................................................................................................... 43
`
`DHS v. New York,
`140 S. Ct. 599 (2020) ......................................................................................................... 43
`
`Divino Grp. LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 19-cv-04749, 2021 WL 51715 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2021) ................................................ 51
`
`Doe v. Google,
`No. 21-16934, 2022 WL 17077497 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2022) ........................................ passim
`
`Dorce v. City of N.Y.,
`2 F.4th 82 (2d Cir. 2021), remanded, 2022 WL 2286381 (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2022) ............. 32
`
`E.T. v. Paxton,
`41 F.4th 709 (5th Cir. 2022) ............................................................................................... 32
`
`Estiverne v. La. State Bar Ass’n,
`863 F.2d 371 (5th Cir. 1989) .............................................................................................. 25
`
`Flast v. Cohen,
`392 U.S. 83 (1968)............................................................................................................. 41
`
`Foley v. Biden,
`No. 4:21-cv-01098, 2021 WL 7708477 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2021)......................................... 74
`
`Fontenot v. McCraw,
`777 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................. 18
`
`Franklin v. Massachusetts,
`505 U.S. 788 (1992)..................................................................................................... 74, 75
`
`Freedom From Religion Found., Inc. v. Obama,
`641 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................................. 63
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 128-1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 7 of 90 PageID #:
`4869
`
`
`
`Geyen v. Marsh,
`775 F.2d 1303 (5th Cir. 1985) ............................................................................................ 72
`
`Gill v. Whitford,
`138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018) ................................................................................................. 41, 42
`
`Glenewinkel v. Carvajal,
`No. 3:20-CV-2256-B, 2022 WL 179599 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2022)...................................... 47
`
`Gov’t of Manitoba v. Bernhardt,
`923 F.3d 173 (D.C. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................ 19
`
`Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S. A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc.,
`527 U.S. 308 (1999)..................................................................................................... 42, 74
`
`Guillot v. Garrett,
`970 F.2d 1320 (4th Cir. 1992) ............................................................................................ 43
`
`Haig v. Agee,
`453 U.S. 280 (1981)........................................................................................................... 43
`
`Hammerhead Enters., Inc. v. Brezenoff,
`707 F.2d 33 (2d Cir. 1983) ................................................................................................. 60
`
`Harrison v. Jefferson Parish Sch. Bd.,
`No. 20-2916, 2022 WL 539277 (E.D. La. Feb. 23, 2022), appeal filed sub nom.,
`Louisiana v. Jefferson Parish Sch., No. 22-30143 (5th Cir. Mar. 24, 2022) .......................... 20
`
`Hart v. Facebook Inc.,
`No. 22-cv-00737, 2022 WL 1427507 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2022).................................35, 37, 41
`
`Holmes v. Secs. Investor Prot. Corp.,
`503 U.S. 258 (1992)........................................................................................................... 33
`
`Huber v. Biden,
`No. 21-cv-06580, 2022 WL 827248 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2022), appeal filed,
`No. 22-15443 (9th Cir. Mar. 25, 2022) ....................................................................38, 40, 51
`
`Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co.,
`419 U.S. 345 (1974)........................................................................................................... 52
`
`Kowalski v. Tesmer,
`543 U.S. 125 (2004)........................................................................................................... 22
`
`Lane v. Pena,
`518 U.S. 187 (1996)........................................................................................................... 44
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 128-1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 8 of 90 PageID #:
`4870
`
`
`
`Lewis v. Casey,
`518 U.S. 343................................................................................................................ 18, 42
`
`Lewis v. Clarke,
`137 S. Ct. 1285 (2017) ....................................................................................................... 44
`
`Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner,
`407 U.S. 551 (1972)........................................................................................................... 49
`
`Louisiana Division Sons of Confederate Veterans v. City of Natchitoches,
`821 F. App’x 317 (5th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................. 53, 54
`
`Louisiana v. Biden,
`No. 2:21-CV-00778, 2022 WL 3570933 (W.D. La. Aug. 18, 2022) ..................................... 30
`
`Louisiana v. United States,
`948 F.3d 317 (5th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................................. 45
`
`Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.,
`457 U.S. 922 (1982)..................................................................................................... 51, 70
`
`Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,
`504 U.S. 555 (1992).................................................................................................... passim
`
`Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n,
`497 U.S. 871 (1990)........................................................................................................... 46
`
`M.S. v. Brown,
`902 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................ 41
`
`Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck,
`139 S. Ct. 1921 (2019) ...................................................................................... 49, 50, 51, 69
`
`Massachusetts v. EPA,
`549 U.S. 497 (2007).................................................................................................... passim
`
`Massachusetts v. Mellon,
`262 U.S. 447 (1923)................................................................................................18, 19, 28
`
`Mayo v. United States,
`319 U.S. 441 (1943)........................................................................................................... 24
`
`McCormack v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n,
`845 F.2d 1338 (5th Cir. 1988) ............................................................................................ 53
`
`Michigan v. U.S. EPA,
`581 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2009) .............................................................................................. 19
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 128-1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 9 of 90 PageID #:
`4871
`
`
`
`Mississippi v. Johnson,
`71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 475 (1866) .............................................................................................. 74
`
`Moody v. Farrell,
`868 F.3d 348 (5th Cir. 2017) .............................................................................................. 70
`
`Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Tarkanian,
`488 U.S. 179 (1988)........................................................................................................... 49
`
`Nat’l Endowment for the Arts v. Finley,
`524 U.S. 569 (1998)....................................................................................................... 1, 62
`
`Newdow v. Roberts,
`603 F.3d 1002 (D.C. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................... 74, 75
`
`Newman v. Google LLC,
`No. 20-CV-04011, 2021 WL 2633423 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2021) ........................................ 51
`
`Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All.,
`542 U.S. 55 (2004)............................................................................................................. 47
`
`Ohio v. Thomas,
`173 U.S. 276 (1899)........................................................................................................... 24
`
`O’Shea v. Littleton,
`414 U.S. 488 (1974)........................................................................................................... 17
`
`Pa., by Shapp v. Kleppe,
`533 F.2d 668 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ............................................................................................ 21
`
`Paterson v. Weinberger,
`644 F.2d 521 (5th Cir. 1981) ........................................................................................ 15, 16
`
`Pelican Chapter, Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Edwards,
`128 F.3d 910 (5th Cir. 1997) .............................................................................................. 33
`
`Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman,
`465 U.S. 89 (1984)............................................................................................................. 72
`
`Penthouse Int’l, Ltd. v. Meese,
`939 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1991) .................................................................................... 59, 60
`
`Peoples Nat’l Bank v. Off. of the Comptroller of the Currency of the U.S. ,
`362 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................................. 48
`
`Pleasant Grove City v. Summum,
`555 U.S. 460 (2009)........................................................................................................... 62
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 128-1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 10 of 90 PageID #:
`4872
`
`
`
`Prager Univ. v. Google LLC,
`951 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................................. 50
`
`Qureshi v. Holder,
`663 F.3d 778 (5th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................................. 48
`
`R.C. Maxwell Co. v. Borough of New Hope,
`735 F.2d 85 (3d Cir. 1984) ................................................................................................. 59
`
`Raines v. Byrd,
`521 U.S. 811 (1997)..................................................................................................... 16, 27
`
`Randall D. Wolcott, M.D., P.A. v. Sebelius,
`635 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................................. 16
`
`Renal Physicians Ass’n v. HHS,
`489 F.3d 1267 (D.C. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................................... 40
`
`Rendell-Baker v. Kohn,
`457 U.S. 830 (1982)..................................................................................................... 49, 66
`
`Satsky v. Paramount Commc’ns, Inc.,
`7 F.3d 1464 (10th Cir. 1993) .............................................................................................. 21
`
`Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War,
`418 U.S. 208 (1974)..................................................................................................... 24, 29
`
`Sheehan v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv.,
`619 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir. 1980), rev’d on other grounds, 456 U.S. 728 (1982) ....................... 44
`
`Shurtleff v. Cityy of Boston,
`142 S. Ct. 1583 (2022) ....................................................................................................... 62
`
`Sierra Club v. Peterson,
`228 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................. 44, 45, 47, 48
`
`Smith v. Booth,
`823 F.2d 94 (5th Cir. 1987) ................................................................................................ 44
`
`Soc’y of Separationists, Inc. v. Herman,
`959 F.2d 1283 (5th Cir. 1992) ...................................................................................... 16, 17
`
`South Carolina v. Katzenbach,
`383 U.S. 301 (1966)........................................................................................................... 18
`
`Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
`578 U.S. 330 (2016)................................................................................................16, 22, 42
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 128-1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 11 of 90 PageID #:
`4873
`
`
`
`St. Tammany Par., ex rel. Davis v. FEMA,
`556 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2009) .............................................................................................. 44
`
`State of Louisiana v. Biden,
`45 F.4th 841 (5th Cir. 2022) ............................................................................................... 42
`
`Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,
`523 U.S. 83 (1998)............................................................................................................. 15
`
`Summers v. Earth Island Inst.,
`555 U.S. 488 (2009)........................................................................................................... 16
`
`Swan v. Clinton,
`100 F.3d 973 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................................ 75
`
`Taylor-Callahan-Coleman Counties, Dist. Adult Prob. Dep’t v. Dole,
`948 F.2d 953 (5th Cir. 1991) .............................................................................................. 45
`
`Tenet v. Doe,
`544 U.S. 1 (2005) .............................................................................................................. 75
`
`Tenth St. Residential Ass’n v. City of Dallas,
`968 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 2020) ........................................................................................ 33, 34
`
`Texas v. EEOC,
`933 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2019) .............................................................................................. 48
`
`Texas v. United States,
`809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), as revised (Nov. 25, 2015)
`aff’d by equally divided court, 579 U.S. 547 (2016) ...................................................... 23, 30
`
`Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A.,
`140 S. Ct. 1615 (2020) ....................................................................................................... 29
`
`Totten v. United States,
`92 U.S. 105 (1875)............................................................................................................. 75
`
`TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez,
`141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) ................................................................................................. 17, 22
`
`Trump v. Hawaii,
`138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) ....................................................................................................... 43
`
`Trump v. New York,
`141 S. Ct. 530 (2020) ......................................................................................................... 30
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 128-1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 12 of 90 PageID #:
`4874
`
`
`
`Trump v. Twitter, Inc.,
`---F. Supp. 3d---, 2022 WL 1443233 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2022), appeal filed,
`No. 22-15961 (9th Cir. June 28, 2022) ................................................................................ 51
`
`Tulsa Prof’l Collection Servs., Inc. v. Pope,
`485 U.S. 478 (1988)........................................................................................................... 66
`
`United States v. Mitchell,
`463 U.S. 206 (1983)........................................................................................................... 44
`
`United States v. U.S. Dist. Ct. of E.D. Mich.,
`407 U.S. 297 (1972)........................................................................................................... 44
`
`Va. ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius,
`656 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................18, 23, 24
`
`Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State ,
`454 U.S. 464 (1982)................................................................................................24, 29, 41
`
`VDARE Found. v. City of Colo. Springs,
`11 F.4th 1151 (10th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1208 (2022) ........................59, 60, 69
`
`Vill. of Bald Head Island v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs,
`714 F.3d 186 (4th Cir. 2013) .............................................................................................. 45
`
`Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.,
`576 U.S. 200 (2015)........................................................................................................... 62
`
`Walmart, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
`517 F. Supp. 3d 637 (E.D. Tx. 2021), aff’d, 21 F.4th 300 (5th Cir. 2021) ....................... 46, 47
`
`Washington v. Trump,
`858 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................ 22
`
`West v. Atkins,
`487 U.S. 42 (1988)....................................................................................................... 52, 64
`
`Whitlock Const., Inc. v. Glickman,
`71 F. Supp 2d 1154 (D. Wy. 1999) ..................................................................................... 46
`
`Whitmore v. Arkansas,
`495 U.S. 149 (1990)..................................................................................................... 18, 24
`
`Williamson v. Tucker,
`645 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1981) .............................................................................................. 16
`
`Wong v. Stripling,
`881 F.2d 200 (5th Cir. 1989) .............................................................................................. 70
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 128-1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 13 of 90 PageID #:
`4875
`
`
`
`Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,
`343 U.S. 579 (1952)........................................................................................................... 75
`
`STATUTES
`
`5 U.S.C. § 551 ............................................................................................................45, 46, 73
`
`5 U.S.C. § 702 ................................................................................................................... 3, 45
`
`5 U.S.C. § 706 ....................................................................................................................... 73
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 ................................................................................................................... 44
`
`47 U.S.C. § 230 ............................................................................................................... 10, 11
`
`Act of Oct. 21, 1976,
`Pub. L. No. 94-574, 90 Stat. 2721, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 702 (1982)................................... 72
`
`Communications Decency Act of 1996,
`Pub. L. No. 104-104, 10 Stat. 56, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230(c) ......................................... 10
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ........................................................................................................... passim
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`Exec. Order No. 13,925, Preventing Online Censorship,
`85 Fed. Reg. 34,079 (May 28, 2020)................................................................................... 11
`
`Exec. Order No. 14,029, Revocation of Certain Presidential Actions and Technical
`Amendment,
`86 Fed. Reg. 27,025 (May 14, 2021)................................................................................... 11
`
`UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
`
`U.S. Const. art II, § 2 ............................................................................................................. 44
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Don’t Push My Buttons Act, S. 2335, 117th Cong. (2021) ...................................................... 12
`
`Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act, S. 1914, 116th Cong. (2019)............................... 12
`
`Jeffrey K. Tulis & Russell Muirhead, The Rhetorical Presidency 4 (2017 ed.) ......................... 63
`
`Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act of 2021, H.R. 5596, 117th Cong............................. 12
`
`Limiting S