Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 264-1 Filed 05/02/23 Page 1 of 297 PageID #:
`18260
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STATE OF LOUISIANA, et al.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
` v.
`
`JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official
`capacity as President of the United States of
`America, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Civil Action No. 22-cv-1213
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 264-1 Filed 05/02/23 Page 2 of 297 PageID #:
`18261
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND AND PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT .......................................................5
`
`I.
`
`For years, in response to public sentiment, social media companies have sought to
`identify and contain misinformation on their platforms. ...................................................5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Since their emergence, social media companies have been economically
`incentivized to moderate content on their platforms. .............................................5
`
`After the 2016 U.S. presidential election, social media companies took
`significant steps to combat election-related influence campaigns and
`misinformation on their platforms. .......................................................................9
`
`As the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, social media companies sought to
`address health misinformation on their platforms. .............................................. 13
`
`Social media companies have long taken actions short of removal against
`“borderline content” that is not expressly prohibited by their content
`moderation removal policies. ............................................................................. 15
`
`Bipartisan calls to revise or revoke Section 230 have repeatedly arisen
`over the years. .................................................................................................... 19
`
`II.
`
`Since 2017, Executive Branch agencies and officials have promoted authoritative
`information or expressed concerns with the spread of misinformation. ........................... 22
`
`A.
`
`The White House ............................................................................................... 23
`
`1.
`
`White House Public Statements .............................................................. 25
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`White House Press Briefings (Jennifer Psaki).............................. 25
`
`President Biden’s Comments ...................................................... 28
`
`White House Communications Director Kate Bedingfield’s
`Comments ................................................................................... 29
`
`2.
`
`White House Private Statements ............................................................. 30
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`White House Requests for More Data about
`Misinformation on Facebook ...................................................... 31
`
`No White House Demands for Changes to the Companies’
`Content Moderation Policies or Practices Regarding
`COVID-19 .................................................................................. 36
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 264-1 Filed 05/02/23 Page 3 of 297 PageID #:
`18262
`
`c.
`
`White House Requests for Action on Fake and Doctored
`Posts and Accounts ..................................................................... 37
`
`B.
`
`The Surgeon General ......................................................................................... 40
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Advisory, the RFI, and Other Public Statements .............................. 42
`
`Direct Communications with Social Media Companies........................... 45
`
`The Virality Project ................................................................................ 49
`
`C.
`
`The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ..................................... 51
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`CDC’s Pandemic-Era Meetings with Social Media Companies ............... 53
`
`CDC’s Responses to Social Media Companies’ Requests for
`Scientific Information Relating to Claims About COVID-19 or
`Vaccines ................................................................................................. 56
`
`CDC Emails Alerting Social Media Companies to Misinformation
`Themes Observed on Platforms and Providing Relevant Scientific
`Information ............................................................................................ 59
`
`CDC’s Two “Be on the Lookout Meetings” in May 2021 ....................... 60
`
`A CDC Official’s One-Time Use of a Facebook Reporting
`Channel in 2021 ..................................................................................... 62
`
`CDC’s Receipt of Bi-weekly Facebook COVID-19 Content
`Reports in 2021 ...................................................................................... 62
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The Census Bureau ............................................................................................ 63
`
`Dr. Fauci, Former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and
`Infectious Diseases (NIAID) .............................................................................. 64
`
`F.
`
`The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) .......................... 69
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`CISA’s Mission and General Overview .................................................. 69
`
`The Election Infrastructure Subsector ..................................................... 70
`
`The Center for Internet Security.............................................................. 72
`
`CISA’s Efforts to Build Resilience to Misinformation ............................ 74
`
`a.
`
`CISA’s Mis-, Dis-, and Malinformation (“MDM”) Team ............ 74
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 264-1 Filed 05/02/23 Page 4 of 297 PageID #:
`18263
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`CISA’s Switchboarding Work During the 2020 Election
`Cycle .......................................................................................... 74
`
`CISA’s Meetings with Social Media Companies ......................... 80
`
`CISA’s Limited Involvement with the Election Integrity
`Partnership .................................................................................. 84
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`The State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) ................................ 86
`
`The Federal Bureau of Investigation ................................................................... 91
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`FBI Efforts as to Foreign Influence and Election Misinformation ........... 91
`
`The “Hunter Biden Laptop Story”........................................................... 97
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................. 101
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 102
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiffs fail to satisfy their burden of demonstrating that irreparable harm would
`result in the absence of a preliminary injunction. ......................................................... 104
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs cannot establish imminent, irreparable harm based on social
`media companies’ past content moderation decisions. ...................................... 106
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Individual Plaintiffs’ alleged harms stem from long-past
`content moderation decisions. ............................................................... 107
`
`Plaintiff States’ alleged harms likewise stem from long-past
`content moderation decisions. ............................................................... 112
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs cannot establish imminent, irreparable harm based on alleged
`past actions of federal officials. ........................................................................ 113
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing of ongoing or
`imminent irreparable harm as to the White House Defendants. ............. 115
`
`Plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing of ongoing or
`imminent irreparable harm as to CISA Defendants. .............................. 116
`
`Plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing of ongoing or
`imminent irreparable harm as to the CDC Defendants........................... 118
`
`Plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing of ongoing or
`imminent irreparable harm as to the Census Defendants. ...................... 120
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 264-1 Filed 05/02/23 Page 5 of 297 PageID #:
`18264
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing of ongoing or
`imminent irreparable harm as to Dr. Fauci, in his former capacity
`as NIAID Director. ............................................................................... 121
`
`Plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing of ongoing or
`imminent irreparable harm as to the GEC Defendants. .......................... 121
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs’ delay in seeking relief shows there is no immediate need for an
`injunction. ........................................................................................................ 126
`
`II.
`
`Plaintiffs fail to show a likelihood of success on the merits. ......................................... 128
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring any of their claims. ......................... 128
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs fail to establish any injury-in-fact. ......................................... 130
`
`Plaintiffs fail to establish traceability and redressability. ....................... 131
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs are not likely to prevail on their First Amendment claims. ................. 136
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs are not likely to prevail on their theory that any
`Defendant provided “such significant encouragement” as to
`convert private conduct into government conduct. ................................ 141
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Plaintiffs’ “significant encouragement” theory rests on a
`misunderstanding of Blum and its progeny. ............................... 141
`
`Plaintiffs fail to show that the White House has provided
`“such significant encouragement” as to render the White
`House legally responsible for social media companies’
`independent decisions. .............................................................. 148
`
`Plaintiffs fail to show that OSG has provided “such
`significant encouragement” as to render OSG legally
`responsible for social media companies’ independent
`decisions. .................................................................................. 160
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`Surgeon General’s Public Statements ............................ 165
`
`OSG’s Private Communications .................................... 167
`
`The RFI ......................................................................... 168
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs fail to show “coercion” under Bantam Books. ........................ 169
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Plaintiffs fail to connect purported coercion to specific acts
`harming them. ........................................................................... 170
`
`Defendants made no threats and instead sought to persuade. ..... 171
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 264-1 Filed 05/02/23 Page 6 of 297 PageID #:
`18265
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Defendants consistently recognized social media
`companies’ authority over their platforms and no evidence
`shows they engaged in improper “pressure.” ............................. 180
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`White House Press Secretary ......................................... 181
`
`White House Digital Director ........................................ 182
`
`The Surgeon General ..................................................... 183
`
`Officials’ remarks about potential § 230 amendments and
`antitrust enforcement raised legitimate policy questions and
`had no coercive effect. .............................................................. 185
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Legislative Remarks and Hearings ................................. 186
`
`Executive Branch Remarks and Actions ........................ 190
`
`3.
`
`Deception is not a freestanding basis for state action and is lacking
`here. ..................................................................................................... 193
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`There is no “deception” test for state action. .............................. 194
`
`The record contradicts Plaintiffs’ allegations of deceit and
`trickery. .................................................................................... 195
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`FBI ................................................................................ 196
`
`Dr. Fauci, in his prior role as the Director of NIAID ...... 200
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs fail to show that any Defendant jointly participated in
`any particular content moderation decision. .......................................... 213
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Plaintiffs fail to show that, by sharing information about
`COVID-19, CDC or the Census Bureau jointly participated
`in any content moderation decision. .......................................... 216
`
`The FBI did not participate in “censorship” by sharing
`information about foreign malign influence efforts or
`potential election-related misinformation. ................................. 224
`
`Plaintiffs fail to establish that CISA worked jointly with
`social media companies to violate the First Amendment. ........... 228
`
`Plaintiffs fail to identify joint action by the Global
`Engagement Center and social media companies to remove
`any social media content. .......................................................... 237
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 264-1 Filed 05/02/23 Page 7 of 297 PageID #:
`18266
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`No “joint action” transformed the private conduct of the
`Election Integrity Partnership or the Virality Project into
`state action attributable to Defendants. ...................................... 239
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`EIP ................................................................................ 240
`
`The Virality Project ....................................................... 244
`
`Social media companies’ voluntary consultation with
`agencies for scientific and medical information about
`COVID-19 does not support a state action finding relating
`to “other agencies.” ................................................................... 248
`
`5.
`
`Even if Plaintiffs could show that any social media content
`moderation actions amount to state action, the Court cannot
`necessarily conclude that all of those content moderation actions
`violate the First Amendment. ................................................................ 250
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs are not likely to prevail on their APA and Ultra Vires claims. ........... 253
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the remaining preliminary injunction requirements. ................. 257
`
`Plaintiffs’ proposed injunction is improper. ................................................................. 261
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs’ proposed injunction lacks the specificity required by Federal
`Rule of Civil Procedure 65. .............................................................................. 262
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ proposed injunction is impermissibly overbroad. ............................. 264
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 275
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 264-1 Filed 05/02/23 Page 8 of 297 PageID #:
`18267
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Abu-Jamal v. Nat’l Pub. Radio,
`No. 96-cv-0594, 1997 WL 527349 (D.D.C. Aug. 21, 1997), aff’d,
`159 F.3d 635 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................................. 187
`
`Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,
`398 U.S. 144 (1970) ............................................................................................................ 146
`
`Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc.,
`140 S. Ct. 2082 (2020) ........................................................................................................ 253
`
`Allied Mktg. Grp., Inc. v. CDL Mktg., Inc.,
`878 F.2d 806 (5th Cir. 1989) ............................................................................................... 101
`
`Alvarez v. O’Brien,
`No. 8:21-cv-303, 2022 WL 5209377 (D. Neb. Oct. 5, 2022) ........................................ 274, 275
`
`Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper,
`785 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................ 258
`
`Am. Family Ass’n v. City. & Cnty. of S.F.,
`277 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2002) ..................................................................................... 174, 176
`
`Am. Mfrs. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan,
`526 U.S. 40 (1999) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Anderson v. Jackson,
`556 F.3d 351 (5th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................... 101
`
`Anderson v. United States,
`417 U.S. 211 (1974) ............................................................................................................ 227
`
`Appellant’s Reply Brief to Cal. Sec’y of State Shirley Weber,
`--- F.4th ---, 2022 WL 4389216 (9th Cir. Sept. 14, 2022)..................................................... 145
`
`Ark. Project v. Shaw,
`775 F.3d 641 (5th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................... 104
`
`Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Clinton,
`997 F.2d 898 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................................. 255
`
`Atiyeh v. Capps,
`449 U.S. 1312 (1981) .......................................................................................................... 262
`
`Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart,
`807 F.3d 229 (7th Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 146, 170, 175, 176
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 264-1 Filed 05/02/23 Page 9 of 297 PageID #:
`18268
`
`Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan,
`372 U.S. 58 (1963) ....................................................................................... 170, 171, 172, 173
`
`Barber v. Bryant,
`860 F.3d 345 (5th Cir. 2017) .......................................................................................... passim
`
`Bass v. Parkwood Hosp.,
`180 F.3d 234 (5th Cir. 1999) ............................................................................... 194, 195, 214
`
`Bates v. State Bar of Ariz.,
`433 U.S. 350 (1977) ............................................................................................................ 249
`
`Batterton v. Marshall,
`648 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ............................................................................................. 253
`
`Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys. v. Southworth,
`529 U.S. 217 (2000) ............................................................................................................ 102
`
`Benisek v. Lamone,
`138 S. Ct. 1942 (2018) ........................................................................................................ 126
`
`Bennett v. Spear,
`520 U.S. 154 (1997) .................................................................................................... 113, 255
`
`Beverly v. United States,
`468 F.2d 732 (5th Cir. 1972) ............................................................................................... 258
`
`Block v. Meese,
`793 F.2d 1303 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ........................................................................................... 176
`
`Bluefield Water Ass’n v. City of Starkville,
`577 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................... 104
`
`Blum v. Yaretsky,
`457 U.S. 991 (1982) ....................................................................................................... passim
`
`Boire v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc.,
`515 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1975) ............................................................................................. 127
`
`Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp.,
`488 U.S. 204 (1988) ............................................................................................................ 253
`
`Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n,
`531 U.S. 288 (2001) .................................................................................................... 137, 246
`
`Buckley v. Valeo,
`424 U.S. 1 (1976) ................................................................................................................ 191
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 264-1 Filed 05/02/23 Page 10 of 297 PageID #:
`18269
`
`Buentello v. Boebert,
`545 F. Supp. 3d 912 (D. Colo. 2021) ................................................................................... 187
`
`Burson v. Freeman,
`504 U.S. 191 (1992) ............................................................................................................ 252
`
`Burton v. City of Belle Glade,
`178 F.3d 1175 (11th Cir. 1999) ........................................................................................... 264
`
`Califano v. Yamasaki,
`442 U.S. 682 (1979) ............................................................................................................ 264
`
`California v. Texas,
`141 S. Ct. 2104 (2021) ........................................................................................................ 261
`
`Campbell v. PMI Food Equip. Grp., Inc.,
`509 F.3d 776 (6th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................... 144
`
`Chambless Enter., LLC v. Redfield,
`508 F. Supp. 3d 101 (W.D. La. 2020) .................................................................................. 260
`
`Changizi v. HHS,
`602 F. Supp. 3d 1031 (S.D. Ohio 2022), appeal filed,
`No. 22-3573 (6th Cir. June 6, 2022) ............................................................. 162, 166, 169, 253
`
`Charlesbank Equity Fund II v. Blinds To Go, Inc.,
`370 F.3d 151 (1st Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................ 126
`
`Chrysler Corp. v. Brown,
`441 U.S. 281 (1979) ............................................................................................................ 253
`
`Citibank, N.A, v. Citytrust,
`756 F.2d 273 (2d Cir. 1985) ........................................................................................ 126, 127
`
`Commodity Trend Service, Inc. v. CFTC,
`233 F.3d 981 (7th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................... 252
`
`Common Cause v. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n,
`674 F.2d 921 (D.C. Cir. 1982) ............................................................................................. 262
`
`Cornish v. Corr. Servs. Corp.,
`402 F.3d 545 (5th Cir. 2005) ....................................................................................... 149, 214
`
`Dalton v. Specter,
`511 U.S. 462 (1994) ............................................................................................................ 255
`
`Daniels v. Alphabet, Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-04687, 2021 WL 1222166 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2021) ......................................... 186
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 264-1 Filed 05/02/23 Page 11 of 297 PageID #:
`18270
`
`Danos v. Jones,
`652 F.3d 577 (5th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................... 255
`
`Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp.,
`571 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................... 257
`
`Def. Distrib. v. U.S. Dep’t of State,
`838 F.3d 451 (5th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................... 258
`
`Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan,
`484 U.S. 518 (1988) ............................................................................................................ 252
`
`Doe v. Google,
`No. 20-cv-07502-BLF, 2021 WL 4864418 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2021), aff’d,
`2022 WL 17077497 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2022) .............................................................. 215, 217
`
`Doe v. Google LLC,
`No. 21-16934, 2022 WL 17077497 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2022) .......................................... passim
`
`Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Way,
`492 F. Supp. 3d 354 (D.N.J. 2020) ...................................................................................... 258
`
`El Paso Cnty. v. Trump,
`982 F.3d 332 (5th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................... 129
`
`Elrod v. Burns,
`427 U.S. 347 (1976) ............................................................................................................ 104
`
`Enter. Int’l, Inc. v. Corporacion Estatal Petrolera Ecuatoriana,
`762 F.2d 464 (5th Cir. 1985) ............................................................................................... 102
`
`Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC,
`521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................... 20
`
`Fairley v. PM Mgmt.-San Antonio AL, LLC,
`724 F. App’x. 343 (5th Cir. 2018) ....................................................................................... 239
`
`Flagg Bros. v. Brooks,
`436 U.S. 149 (1978) ............................................................................................................ 221
`
`Flight Training Int’l, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin.,
`58 F.4th 234 (5th Cir. 2023) ........................................................................................ 256, 257
`
`Ford v. NYLCare Health Plans of Gulf Coast, Inc.,
`301 F.3d 329 (5th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................... 131
`
`Frazier v. Bd. of Trs. of Nw. Miss. Reg’l Med. Ctr.,
`765 F.2d 1278 (5th Cir.), amended, 777 F.2d 329 (5th Cir. 1985) ................. 214, 216, 217, 218
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 264-1 Filed 05/02/23 Page 12 of 297 PageID #:
`18271
`
`Freedom From Religion Found., Inc. v. Obama,
`641 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................... 147, 269, 270
`
`FTC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`581 F. Supp. 3d 34 (D.D.C. 2022) ....................................................................................... 192
`
`Gallagher v. Neil Young Freedom Concert,
`49 F.3d 1442 (10th Cir. 1995) ............................................................................................. 144
`
`Garzes v. Lopez,
`281 F. App’x 323 (5th Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................ 133
`
`George v. Edholm,
`752 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................... 194, 195
`
`Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co.,
`336 U.S. 490 (1949) ............................................................................................................ 251
`
`Google, Inc. v. Hood,
`822 F.3d 212 (5th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................... 104
`
`Guillot v. Garrett,
`970 F.2d 1320 (4th Cir. 1992) ............................................................................................. 252
`
`H.D. Vest, Inc. v. H.D. Vest Mgmt. & Servs. LLC,
`No. 3:09-CV-00393, 2009 WL 1766095 (N.D. Tex. June 23, 2009) ............................ 126, 127
`
`Haig v. Agee,
`453 U.S. 280 (1981) ............................................................................................................ 252
`
`Hammerhead Enters., Inc. v. Brezenoff,
`707 F.2d 33 (2d Cir. 1983) ........................................................................... 174, 178, 180, 185
`
`Harmon v. Dallas Cnty.,
`927 F.3d 884 (5th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................... 273
`
`Hart v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 22-cv-737, 2022 WL 1427507 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2022) ....................................... 161, 162
`
`Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc.,
`582 U.S. 79 (2017) .............................................................................................................. 188
`
`Holder v. Humanitarian L. Project,
`561 U.S. 1 (2010) ................................................................................................................ 252
`
`Holmberg v. Armbrecht,
`327 U.S. 392 (1946) ............................................................................................................ 126
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 264-1 Filed 05/02/23 Page 13 of 297 PageID #:
`18272
`
`Howard Gault Co. v. Tex. Rural Legal Aid, Inc.,
`848 F.2d 544 (5th Cir. 1988) .......................................................................................... passim
`
`Huber v. Biden,
`No. 21-CV-06580-EMC, 2022 WL 827248 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2022), aff’d,
`2023 WL 17818543 (9th Cir. Dec. 20, 2022) ....................................................................... 215
`
`Humana, Inc. v. Jackson,
`804 F.2d 1390 (5th Cir. 1986) ............................................................................................. 104
`
`Illinois v. Telemarketing Assocs., Inc.,
`538 U.S. 600 (2003) ............................................................................................................ 251
`
`Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc. v. Dep’t of Treasury,
`946 F.3d 649 (5th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................... 131
`
`Informed Consent Action Network v. YouTube LLC,
`582 F. Supp. 3d 712 (N.D. Cal. 2022).................................................................................. 186
`
`INS v. Chadha,
`462 U.S. 919 (1983) ............................................................................................................ 186
`
`INS v. Legalization Assistance Project of L.A. Cnty. Fed’n of Labor,
`510 U.S. 1301 (1993) .......................................................................................................... 265
`
`Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co.,
`419 U.S. 345 (1974) ............................................................................................ 137, 214, 221
`
`Juliana v. United States,
`947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020), denying reh’g en banc, 986 F.3d 1295 (9th Cir. 2021) ......... 261
`
`Jungels v. Pierce,
`825 F.2d 1127 (7th Cir. 1987) ............................................................................................. 274
`
`Justin Indus., Inc. v. Choctaw Secs., L.P.,
`920 F.2d 262 (5th Cir. 1990) ............................................................................................... 104
`
`Keller v. State Bar of Cal.,
`496 U.S. 1 (1990) ................................................................................................................ 261
`
`Kentucky v. Biden,
`23 F.4th 585 (6th Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................ 113
`
`La. Div. Sons of Confederate Veterans v. City of Natchitoches,
`821 F. App’x 317 (5th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................... passim
`
`Laird v. Tatum,
`408 U.S. 1 (1972) ................................................................................................................ 179
`
`xii
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 264-1 Filed 05/02/23 Page 14 of 297 PageID #:
`18273
`
`Leach v. Carlile,
`258 U.S. 138 (1922) ............................................................................................................ 252
`
`Louisiana v. Biden,
`45 F.4th 841 (5th Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................ 263
`
`Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.,
`457 U.S. 922 (1982) ............................................................................................................ 214
`
`Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,
`504 U.S. 555 (1992) .................................................................................................... 129, 133
`
`M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg v. Abbott,
`907 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 2018) ...........................