And The Government's Fifth Cir. Motion For A Stay Of Judge Doughty's Loony Ruling Is Now On File...

Just as we said -- the matter is now in better hands. [Prior backgrounder of mine, on it, here.]

The Fifth Circuit, while largely conservative, will assign this by lot -- to a three judge panel. It is hard to see a scenario where a stay is not granted. Here's a bit, from the motion for a stay:

. . .One of the central prerogatives of the President and Executive Branch officials is to speak to members of the American public -- including American companies -- about how they can help mitigate threats to the Nation. From President Kennedy’s exhortation for steel companies to lower their prices to President Trump’s efforts to encourage companies to keep American jobs onshore, presidents and other officials have long exercised the power of persuasion to advance their vision of the public good. While the government may not coerce private parties to act on its behalf to achieve indirectly what it could not do directly, courts have set a high threshold for finding such coercion to give the government sufficient latitude to “advocate and defend its own policies.” Board of Regents of the Univ. of Wis. Sys. v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217, 229 (2000).

Here, however, the district court issued a universal injunction with sweeping language that could be read to prohibit (among other things) virtually any government communication directed at social-media platforms regarding content moderation. . . .

The injunction reflects numerous legal errors. The district court adopted a theory of state parens patriae standing that the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected, including as recently as last month. The court’s conclusion that the individual plaintiffs have standing rests on a handful of past episodes of content moderation by private actors, without any showing that any government action will cause future harm to plaintiffs. The court’s merits analysis reflects an insupportably broad view of what interactions can make the government responsible for private parties’ actions. And the injunction vastly exceeds the court’s equitable powers. It forbids conduct having nothing to do with plaintiffs, cannot be regarded as necessary to prevent irreparable harm, lacks the requisite specificity, and will significantly and irreparably harm the government and the public. This Court should stay it. . . .

Indeed -- onward now, to a very short fuse on a reply from the plaintiffs -- then a stay ruling from the Fifth Circuit panel, I'd expect. Grin.

नमस्ते