Exhibit 865

Missouri v. Biden, No. 3:22-cv-01213 (W.D. La.), Memorandum Ruling on Request for Preliminary Injunction, Doc. 293

Exhibit 865 · Court opinion

Missouri v. Biden, No. 3:22-cv-01213 (W.D. La.), Memorandum Ruling on Request for Preliminary Injunction, Doc. 293

The Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence in support of their claims that they were the victims of a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign.

155-page ruling after expedited discovery granting a preliminary injunction against officials at the White House, Surgeon General's office, CDC, FBI, CISA, NIAID and the State Department on the finding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the claim that the government coerced or significantly encouraged platform moderation. The court says the alleged censorship 'almost exclusively targeted conservative speech' and that the issues 'go beyond party lines,' and says the evidence at this stage 'depicts an almost dystopian scenario.' Reviewed as a preliminary ruling; the Supreme Court later held the plaintiffs lacked standing.

Source: U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana (Judge Terry A. Doughty)
Date: 4 July 2023
Quoted from: Memorandum Ruling, p. 154
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.293.0.pdf
Accessed: 2026-11-09
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Cited by

Finding INF-4.3: Primary record CISA's head of its misinformation team testified that CISA forwarded election officials' reports about posts to platforms in the 2020 election, and the record differs on whether it did so in 2022. The district court wrote in 2023 that no evidence produced in the case tied the Trump administration to the switchboarding, and a 2025 Senate Commerce majority report dates DHS's election-disinformation task force to March 2018.
Finding POL-7.11: Primary record On 4 July 2023 the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana preliminarily enjoined officials of the White House, the Surgeon General's office, CDC, FBI, CISA, NIAID and the State Department, finding the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the claim that the government coerced or significantly encouraged platform moderation. The court wrote that the alleged censorship "almost exclusively targeted conservative speech" and that the issues "go beyond party lines."