Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 35-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 76 PageID #: 1501
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`The State of Missouri and the State of
`Louisiana,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`President 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
`
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 35-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 76 PageID #: 1502
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 4
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`For years, social media companies have sought to contain content on their platforms that
`they identify as “misinformation.” ...................................................................................... 4
`
`Various executive branch officials under multiple administrations have spoken about the
`harmful effects of misinformation and sought to promote accurate information. .............. 7
`
`Officials from both political parties have explored potential reforms to § 230(c). .......... 14
`
`The present action. ............................................................................................................ 15
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................................... 18
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 19
`
`I.
`
`The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the States’ claims. ................................ 19
`
`A.
`
`The States lack Article III standing to bring any of their claims. ......................... 19
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`The States do not identify an injury that satisfies Article III. ................... 21
`
`The States cannot show any injury that is traceable to the conduct of
`Defendants, as opposed to third-party social media companies not before
`this Court. .................................................................................................. 32
`
`iii.
`
`The States’ alleged injuries are not redressable by any relief they seek. .. 41
`
`B.
`
`The States do not identify a waiver of sovereign immunity for any of their claims
`against the HHS and DHS Defendants. ................................................................ 44
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`All claims against the HHS and DHS Defendants must be dismissed
`because the States do not identify any “discrete agency action” that would
`waive sovereign immunity. ....................................................................... 46
`
`The APA claims against HHS and DHS should be dismissed because the
`States do not identify a “final agency action.” .......................................... 49
`
`II.
`
`The States’ claims all fail on the merits. ........................................................................... 50
`
`A. The States fail to state a plausible First Amendment claim against any of the
`Defendants. ........................................................................................................... 50
`
`i.
`
`The States fail to make a plausible allegation of coercion or a similar
`degree of encouragement. ......................................................................... 52
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 35-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 76 PageID #: 1503
`
`
`
`ii.
`
`The States fail to allege that any Defendant specifically directed any social
`media company to take any specific action against a post by any resident
`of a Plaintiff State. .................................................................................... 56
`
`The States fail to state plausible “ultra vires” claims. .......................................... 60
`
`The States fail to state plausible APA claims against HHS or DHS. ................... 61
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`III.
`
`The separation of powers doctrine independently requires dismissal of the President from
`this action. ......................................................................................................................... 63
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 65
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 35-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 76 PageID #: 1504
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Action for Children’s Television v. FCC,
`59 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ................................................................................................. 32
`Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas 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) ............................................................................................. 21, 22, 25, 29
`Allen v. Wright,
`468 U.S. 737 (1984) ......................................................................................................... 20, 48
`Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan,
`526 U.S. 40 (1999) ................................................................................................................. 52
`Arizona v. Biden,
`31 F.4th 469 (6th Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................... 24
`Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 1378 (2015) ............................................................................................................ 63
`ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish,
`490 U.S. 605 (1989) ......................................................................................................... 32, 41
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ......................................................................................................... 18, 62
`Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons v. Schiff,
`518 F. Supp. 3d 505 (D.D.C. 2021) ................................................................................ passim
`Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons v. Schiff,
`23 F.4th 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2022) .............................................................................. 33, 34, 35, 38
`Atkinson v. Meta Platforms, Inc.,
`No. 20-17489, 2021 WL 5447022 (9th Cir. Nov. 22, 2021) .................................................. 35
`Barnes v. Lehman,
`861 F.2d 1383 (5th Cir. 1988) .................................................................................... 51, 52, 56
`Batterton v. Marshall,
`648 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ................................................................................................ 62
`Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys. v. Southworth,
`529 U. S. 217 (2000) .............................................................................................................. 55
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ......................................................................................................... 18, 35
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 35-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 5 of 76 PageID #: 1505
`
`
`
`Bennett v. Spear,
`520 U.S. 154 (1997) ............................................................................................................... 49
`Biden v. Knight First Amend. Inst.,
`141 S. Ct. 1220 (2021) (mem.) ......................................................................................... 31, 32
`Blum v. Yaretsky,
`457 U.S. 991 (1982) ....................................................................................................... passim
`Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan,
`372 U.S. 58 (1963) ................................................................................................................. 32
`Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp.,
`488 U.S. 204 (1988) ............................................................................................................... 62
`Brackeen v. Haaland,
`994 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2021) (en banc) ............................................................................ 21, 22
`California v. Texas
`141 S. Ct. 2104 (2021) ............................................................................................................ 41
`Cambranis v. Blinken,
`994 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2021) .................................................................................................. 46
`Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.,
`745 F.2d 1101 (7th Cir. 1984) .......................................................................................... 28, 29
`Changizi v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,
`--- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 2:22-cv-1776, 2022 WL 1423176 (S.D. Ohio May 5, 2022), appeal
`docketed, No. 22-3573 (6th Cir. June 30, 2022) .............................................................. passim
`Chi. & S. Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S. S. Corp.,
`333 U.S. 103 (1948) ............................................................................................................... 64
`Children’s Health Defense v. Facebook Inc.,
`546 F. Supp. 3d 909 (N.D. Cal. 2021) .................................................................. 40, 51, 59, 60
`Chrysler Corp. v. Brown,
`441 U.S. 281 (1979) ............................................................................................................... 62
`City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,
`461 U.S. 95 (1983) ........................................................................................................... 19, 25
`City of New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense,
`913 F.3d 423 (4th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................ 47, 48
`Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA,
`568 U.S. 398 (2013) ....................................................................................................... passim
`Mississippi v. Johnson,
`71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 475 (1866) ............................................................................................ 63, 64
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 35-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 6 of 76 PageID #: 1506
`
`
`
`Ctr. for Democracy & Tech. v. Trump,
`507 F. Supp. 3d 213 (D.D.C. 2020) ........................................................................................ 64
`Dalton v. Specter,
`511 U.S. 462 (1994) ............................................................................................................... 64
`Danos v. Jones,
`652 F.3d 577 (5th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 61
`Davis v. Fed. Election Comm’n,
`554 U.S. 724 (2008) ............................................................................................................... 32
`Carlin Commc’ns, Inc. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co.,
`827 F.2d 1291 (9th Cir. 1987) ................................................................................................ 39
`Divino Grp. LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 19-cv-04749, 2021 WL 51715 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2021) ................................................. 51
`Estiverne v. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n,
`863 F.2d 371 (5th Cir. 1989) .................................................................................................. 30
`Foley v. Biden,
`No. 4:21-cv-01098, 2021 WL 7708477 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2021) ......................................... 64
`Franklin v. Massachusetts,
`505 U.S. 788 (1992) .......................................................................................................... 63, 64
`Geyen v. Marsh,
`775 F.2d 1303 (5th Cir. 1985) ................................................................................................ 60
`Gill v. Whitford,
`138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018) ............................................................................................................ 28
`Glass v. Paxton,
`900 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................. 44
`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) .................................................................................... 22, 23, 24
`Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc.,
`527 U.S. 308 (1999) ............................................................................................................... 63
`Harrison v. Jefferson Parish Sch. Bd.,
`No. 20-2916, 2022 WL 539277 (E.D. La. Feb. 23, 2022), appeal docketed, No. 22-30143 (5th
`Cir. Mar. 24, 2022) ................................................................................................................. 29
`Hart v. Facebook,
`No. 22-cv-00737, 2022 WL 1427507 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2022) .................................... passim
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 35-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 7 of 76 PageID #: 1507
`
`
`
`Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States,
`323 U.S. 386 (1945) ............................................................................................................... 44
`Hotze v. Burwell,
`784 F.3d 984 (5th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................. 28
`Huber v. Biden,
`No. 21-CV-06580-EMC, 2022 WL 827248 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2022), appeal docketed, No.
`22-15443 (9th Cir. Mar. 25, 2022) ....................................................................... 34, 36, 42, 51
`Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co.,
`419 U.S. 345 (1974) ............................................................................................................... 52
`Kowalski v. Tesmer,
`543 U.S. 125 (2004) ............................................................................................................... 21
`Lance v. Coffman,
`549 U.S. 437 (2007) ............................................................................................................... 28
`Lane v. Pena,
`518 U.S. 187 (1996) ............................................................................................................... 44
`Lewis v. Clarke,
`137 S. Ct. 1285 (2017) ............................................................................................................ 44
`Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner,
`407 U.S. 551 (1972) ............................................................................................................... 50
`Louisiana Division Sons of Confederate Veterans v. City of Natchitoches,
`821 F. App’x 317 (5th Cir. 2020) ........................................................................................... 53
`Luv n’ care, Ltd. v. Jackel Int’l Ltd.,
`502 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (W.D. La. 2020) .............................................................................. 4, 19
`Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,
`504 U.S. 555 (1992) ....................................................................................................... passim
`Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n,
`497 U.S. 871 (1990) ............................................................................................................... 46
`Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck,
`139 S. Ct. 1921 (2019) ............................................................................................................ 50
`Massachusetts v. EPA,
`549 U.S. 497 (2007) ................................................................................................... 22, 23, 26
`Massachusetts v. Mellon,
`262 U.S. 447 (1923) ................................................................................................... 21, 22, 26
`Mayo v. United States,
`319 U.S. 441 (1943) ............................................................................................................... 27
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 35-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 8 of 76 PageID #: 1508
`
`
`
`McCormack v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n,
`845 F.2d 1338 (5th Cir. 1988) ................................................................................................ 52
`Md. People’s Counsel v. FERC,
`760 F.2d 318 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ................................................................................................ 24
`Michigan v. EPA,
`581 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................. 24
`Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Tarkanian,
`488 U.S. 179 (1988) ............................................................................................................... 50
`Nat’l Endowment for the Arts v. Finley,
`524 U.S. 569 (1998) ........................................................................................................... 1, 55
`Nat’l Res. Def. Council v. Pena,
`147 F.3d 1012 (D.C. Cir. 1998) .............................................................................................. 43
`Newdow v. Roberts,
`603 F.3d 1002 (D.C. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................................. 64
`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) ........................................................................................................... 46, 48
`Ohio v. Thomas,
`173 U.S. 276 (1899) ............................................................................................................... 27
`O’Shea v. Littleton,
`414 U.S. 488 (1973) ............................................................................................................... 19
`Pelican Ch., 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) ........................................................................................................... 60, 61
`Pennsylvania, by Shapp v. Kleppe,
`533 F.2d 668 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ................................................................................................ 25
`Peoples Nat’l Bank v. Off. of the Comptroller of the Currency of the U.S.,
`362 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................. 49
`Pleasant Grove City v. Summum,
`555 U.S. 460 (2009) ........................................................................................................... 1, 55
`Prager Univ. v. Google LLC,
`951 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................. 51
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 35-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 9 of 76 PageID #: 1509
`
`
`
`Raines v. Byrd,
`521 U.S. 811 (1997) ............................................................................................................... 31
`Randall D. Wolcott, M.D., P.A. v. Sebelius,
`635 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 19
`Renal Physicians Ass’n v. HHS,
`489 F.3d 1267 (D.C. Cir. 2007) .............................................................................................. 41
`Rendell-Baker v. Kohn,
`457 U.S. 830 (1982) ......................................................................................................... 50, 59
`Rochester Tel. Corp. v. United States,
`307 U.S. 125 (1939) ............................................................................................................... 49
`Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War,
`418 U.S. 208 (1974) ......................................................................................................... 27, 28
`Sheehan v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv.,
`619 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir. 1980), rev’d on other grounds, 456 U.S. 728 (1982) ...................... 45
`Shurtleff v. City of Boston,
`142 S. Ct. 1583 (2022) ...................................................................................................... 43, 55
`Sierra Club v. Peterson,
`228 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2000) (en banc) .......................................................................... passim
`Skinner v. Gautreaux,
`549 F. Supp. 3d 493 (M.D. La. 2021) .............................................................................. 21, 28
`Smith v. Booth,
`823 F.2d 94 (5th Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................... 45
`Soc’y of Separationists, Inc. v. Herman,
`959 F.2d 1283 (5th Cir. 1992) ................................................................................................ 19
`South Carolina v. Katzenbach,
`383 U.S. 310 (1966) ............................................................................................................... 21
`Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
`578 U.S. 330 (2016) ......................................................................................................... 19, 26
`St. Tammany Par., ex rel. Davis v. FEMA,
`556 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................. 44
`Staten v. Harrison Cnty., Mississippi,
`No. 1:19-CV-560-KS-RHW, 2020 WL 1644991 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 2, 2020) ......................... 18
`Staten v. Harrison Cnty.,
`No. 20-60329, 2021 WL 5766576 (5th Cir. Dec. 3, 2021) .................................................... 18
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 35-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 10 of 76 PageID #:
`1510
`
`
`
`Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,
`523 U.S. 83 (1998) ................................................................................................................. 18
`Summers v. Earth Island Inst.,
`555 U.S. 488 (2009) ............................................................................................................... 19
`Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus,
`134 S. Ct. 2334 (2014) ............................................................................................................ 20
`Taylor-Callahan-Coleman Ctys. Dist. Adult Prob. Dep’t v. Dole,
`948 F.2d 953 (5th Cir. 1991) ............................................................................................ 45, 46
`Tenet v. Doe,
`544 U.S. 1 (2005) ............................................................................................................. 64, 65
`Texas v. EEOC,
`933 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2019) .................................................................................................. 49
`Texas v. United States,
`809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................. 26
`Totten v. United States,
`92 U.S. 105 (1876) ................................................................................................................. 65
`Transunion LLC v. Ramirez,
`141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) ...................................................................................................... 19, 32
`Trump v. Twitter Inc.,
`--- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2022 WL 1443233, at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2022), appeal docketed, No.
`22-15961 (9th Cir. June 28, 2022) ............................................................................... 39, 40, 51
`United States v. Mitchell,
`463 U.S. 206 (1983) ............................................................................................................... 44
`United States v. Or. State Med. Soc’y,
`343 U.S. 326 (1952) ............................................................................................................... 44
`Utah Div. of Consumer Prot. v. Stevens,
`398 F. Supp. 3d 1139 (D. Utah 2019) .................................................................................... 24
`Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.,
`454 U.S. 464 (1982) ................................................................................................... 22, 23, 27
`Virginia ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius,
`656 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................ 21, 22, 26, 27
`Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.,
`576 U.S. 200 (2015) ............................................................................................................... 55
`Walmart Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
`517 F. Supp. 3d 637 (E.D. Tex. 2021), aff’d 21 F.4th 300 (5th Cir. 2021) ............................ 47
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 35-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 11 of 76 PageID #:
`1511
`
`
`
`Warth v. Seldin,
`422 U.S. 490 (1975) ......................................................................................................... 22, 31
`West v. Atkins,
`487 U.S. 42 (1988) ..................................................................................................... 51, 52, 56
`Whitmore v. Arkansas,
`495 U.S. 149 (1990) ......................................................................................................... 20, 27
`Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,
`343 U.S. 579 (1952) ............................................................................................................... 64
`
`United States Code
`5 U.S.C. § 702 ........................................................................................................................ 45, 60
`5 U.S.C. § 706 ........................................................................................................................ 61, 62
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 .......................................................................................................................... 45
`Act of Oct. 21, 1976,
`Pub. L. No. 94-574, 90 Stat. 2721, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 702 .............................................. 14
`Communications Decency Act of 1996,
`Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 509, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230(c) .................................................. 14
`
`Rules
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 ....................................................................................... 16, 17
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 ............................................................................................ 18
`
`Regulations
`Impact of Health Misinformation in the Digital Information Environment in the United States
`Throughout the COVID–19 Pandemic Request for Information,
`87 Fed. Reg. 12,712 (Mar. 7, 2022) ................................................................................. 12, 13
`Preventing Online Censorship, § 1,
`85 Fed. Reg. 34,079 (published June 2, 2020), rescinded by Executive Order 14,029 of May
`14, 2021 (Revocation of Certain Presidential Actions and Technical Amendment), § 1, 86
`Fed. Reg. 27,025 (published May 19, 2021) .................................................................... 12, 13
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 35-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 12 of 76 PageID #:
`1512
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`For years, social media companies have taken independent steps to slow the spread of
`
`content that they find misleading or harmful, not only here in the United States but across the
`
`globe. Long before this Administration took office, those companies began adopting strategies to
`
`limit the spread of such content—often called “misinformation”—on their platforms. Meanwhile,
`
`government officials have engaged in a broader debate over the rising influence of social media
`
`platforms. As part of that debate, policymakers across the political spectrum have expressed
`
`support for legislative reforms impacting social media companies, often citing those companies’
`
`efforts to address misinformation as the basis for such reforms. Although this debate is a common
`
`one in politics—Justice Scalia called it “the very business of government to favor and disfavor
`
`points of view on . . . innumerable subjects”1—the States contend that the views expressed by
`
`Defendants on these subjects are somehow exceptional and render them responsible for the content
`
`moderation choices of all social media platforms. The States thus assert a number of claims,
`
`including claims under the First Amendment, in an attempt to secure an injunction that would,
`
`ironically, serve as a judicial gag order to prevent the Executive Branch from expressing its views
`
`on these matters of important public concern.
`
`The States’ key allegations, however, are not new, let alone the type that would warrant
`
`the extraordinary relief they seek. To the contrary, the Plaintiff States bring claims virtually
`
`identical to those brought by individual users of social media platforms in courts around the
`
`country. Those individuals likewise claimed that the federal government was responsible for the
`
`independent decisions of social media platforms to take content moderation measures against the
`
`
`1 Nat’l Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569, 598 (1998) (Scalia, J. concurring), quoted
`at Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 468 (2009).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 35-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 13 of 76 PageID #:
`1513
`
`
`
`individual users’ posts. But every court to have considered those claims, including the D.C. Circuit,
`
`has dismissed them for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
`
`Missouri and Louisiana now try again, repackaging those individuals’ claims into their own
`
`Complaint in this action. But their allegations suffer from the same deficiencies that doomed the
`
`earlier suits. And the States inject a new deficiency: They improperly purport to enforce, against
`
`the federal government, the rights of their residents under the First Amendment of the Federal
`
`Constitution, contrary to binding Supreme Court precedent. This Court should dismiss the States’
`
`Complaint for multiple reasons.
`
`As a threshold matter, the States cannot satisfy any of the Article III standing requirements.
`
`First, they cannot establish an injury that is cognizable under Article III. The Complaint relies on
`
`alleged content moderation measures that the social media companies imposed on certain unnamed
`
`citizens residing in the States (and elsewhere), but the Supreme Court has made clear that States
`
`cannot sue the federal government to enforce the individual rights of their citizens. Second, the
`
`States have not sufficiently alleged that the asserted injuries stemming from the actions of the
`
`identified social media companies were caused by any Defendant as opposed to the independent
`
`judgments of those companies under their terms of service with users. Those companies
`
`independently chose to combat misinformation years ago, before this Administration took office,
`
`and before the federal officials sued here made the comments at issue. Indeed, although the
`
`Complaint cites numerous statements by government officials, it does not identify how those
`
`statements are connected to the moderation decisions that purportedly harmed their residents.
`
`Third, there is no reason to conclude the relief the States seek here—including a sweeping and
`
`unprecedented injunction that would operate as a gag order on federal officials—would force the
`
`social media companies to abandon their policies against misinformation, which after all are
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 35-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 14 of 76 PageID #:
`1514
`
`
`
`embodied in the terms of service to which users of those companies’ platforms have contractually
`
`agreed.
`
`Even if the States could somehow remedy these jurisdictional deficiencies, their case would
`
`fail on an independent jurisdictional ground. The Complaint’s wholesale attack on a broad range
`
`of disparate government speech on matters of public concern does not challenge a discrete agency
`
`action—much less a final one—that would trigger the applicable waiver of sovereign immunity to
`
`sue the federal government. Instead, the States’ generalized grievance over the manner in which
`
`the government h