Skip to main content
Murthy v. Missouri

Murthy v. Missouri

Case in courtWikipedia

Search complete. 7 mentions across 7 episodes found for "Murthy v. Missouri".

Oct 15, 2026

Joe PagsHOST
33:27
Look, maybe morally you and I could talk about that over a drink, but, but when it comes to doing the job, has there been a finer AG than Ken Paxton? I mean, maybe Bailey when he was in Missouri, but Paxton has been...
Joe PagsHOST
33:38
I mean, when you talk about Missouri v. Biden, Paxton was all over that.
Joe PagsHOST
33:40
When you talk about suing Google and Meta, Facebook, suing all these social, social media sites, when you talk about keeping men and boys out of girls' and womens' sports, Ken Paxton has been the guy.
Joe PagsHOST
33:50
Is he not touting his praises as much as I am? 'Cause how can this be tied?
David MauricioSOUNDBITE_SPEAKER
85:15
...
David MauricioSOUNDBITE_SPEAKER
85:15
they ruled in Murthy v. Missouri, uh, in 2024 that there was no evidence in favor of this idea that the Biden administration violated the first amendment rights of any of these people.
David MauricioSOUNDBITE_SPEAKER
85:22
So that's already settled.
GavinSOUNDBITE_SPEAKER
85:23
So what? So they found a way around the rule.
speaker_13PANELIST
48:17
The Supreme Court? Yes.
David MauricioGUEST
48:19
They ruled in Murphy v. Missouri in 2024 that there was no evidence in favor of this idea that the Biden administration violated the First Amendment rights of any of these people.
David MauricioGUEST
48:28
So that's already settled.
David MauricioGUEST
48:29
So they found a way around the rule.
Quinta JurecicPANELIST
53:42
Um, and we also saw a sort of parallel effort, um, in the courts, uh, by Republican attorneys general around the country to push back against coordination between the US government and these platforms.
Quinta JurecicPANELIST
53:56
So this is the, uh, Murthy v. Missouri Supreme Court case on, uh, jawboning is the term that's often used.
Quinta JurecicPANELIST
54:02
The argument essentially is, you know, um, if the FBI taps Facebook on the shoulder and says, "Hey, you should take this, this down," that could potentially raise First Amendment concerns.
Quinta JurecicPANELIST
54:12
I don't, I don't think that's an insane argument.
Michael CampanellaHOST
10:56
Okay.
Jake HuffakerHOST
10:56
When you look at the case of Murthy v. Missouri, where they ruled that the Biden administration was pressuring social media companies, namely Facebook, to take down right-wing content in the sort of early Biden administration.
Jake HuffakerHOST
11:11
And for the record, that case got really complicated, and they ended up overturning it and based not on the merits of the case, but based on jurisdiction and, uh, whether or not you, like, had the right to even sue at all in the Supreme Court.
Jake HuffakerHOST
11:24
But in the appellate court, they ruled, and the, one of the things that was happening was this sort of underpinning of a subtle threat of like, you know, "It would be a shame if we were to do some crazy stuff to Facebook, so you probably should take down all this, you know, right-wing content," and an intense pressure gambit.
Jewels JonesHOST
48:49
They were involved in it and several others.
Jewels JonesHOST
48:51
It was the Biden administration, Missouri v. Biden.
Jewels JonesHOST
48:55
And that was the freedom of speech and all of that.
Jewels JonesHOST
48:59
They went after that.

1 more episode mentions Murthy v. Missouri.

Create an account to see the whole feed, search across every transcript, and follow the entities you care about.

We value your privacy

We use cookies to understand how you use our platform and to improve your experience. Click “Accept All” to consent, or “Decline non-essential” to opt out of non-essential cookies. Read our Privacy Policy.