State Department Seeks 45-Day Stay to Answer Texas Censorship Complaint

The State Department asks that the U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas in Tyler stay its Feb. 12 deadline for responding to the Dec. 6 complaint in which Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and the Daily Wire and Federalist media outlets allege the State Department is running “one of the most egregious government operations to censor the American press” in the history of the U.S. (see 2312060043), said the government’s motion Monday (docket 6:23-cv-00609). Good cause exists to grant the requested 45-day stay, it said. The government understands the plaintiffs wouldn’t oppose a stay pending adjudication of their anticipated motions for a preliminary injunction and expedited discovery, said the motion. The government expects within seven days to file a motion to transfer that will raise “substantial threshold challenges to the propriety of venue” in the Eastern District of Texas. The primary bases of that motion are that Paxton, the sole plaintiff with any connection to the Eastern District of Texas, lacks Article III standing, and that the complaint alleges no events or omissions giving rise to the plaintiffs’ claims that occurred in Texas, it said. During the meet-and-confer that the parties held Monday afternoon, the plaintiffs indicated that they would oppose transfer and also informed the defendants, for the first time, that they intend to file motions for preliminary injunction and expedited discovery, said the motion. If granted, the motion to transfer would obviate the need for any further proceedings in this court, it said. A stay of the defendants’ deadlines will allow the court time to resolve the defendants’ soon-forthcoming motion to transfer before the parties proceed to briefing in this court, if necessary, on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims and requests for a preliminary injunction and expedited discovery, said the motion. The complaint alleges that the State Department, through its Global Engagement Center, “is actively intervening” to render “disfavored” press outlets unprofitable by funding the marketing and promotion of “censorship technology and private censorship enterprises to covertly suppress speech of a segment of the American press.” Named as defendants are Secretary of State Antony Blinken and five of his State Department colleagues.