Days after the U.S. Supreme Court denied Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s motion to intervene in Missouri v. Biden (see 2312110052), U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty for Western Louisiana in Monroe said in a signed order Wednesday (docket 3:22-cv-01213) that he’s now “inclined” to issue a ruling on Kennedy’s April 12 motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining Biden administration officials from conversing with social media companies about censoring Kennedy’s protected speech. Doughty, who issued the July 4 injunction against administration officials that’s now before SCOTUS, previously stayed Kennedy’s injunction motion until after SCOTUS resolves Missouri v. Biden. In light of Doughty's consolidating Kennedy’s case with Missouri v. Biden July 24, it’s “unclear” whether that consolidation “interferes with the court’s jurisdiction” over Kennedy’s injunction motion, said the order. Doughty ordered the parties to submit briefs on whether he can issue a ruling on the injunction, despite the related case being before SCOTUS. The government’s brief will be due Dec. 20. The plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden, including the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, will respond seven days later, said the order. Justice Samuel Alito, in dissenting from the SCOTUS decision denying Kennedy's motion to intervene, specifically cited as grounds for his dissent that Kennedy's motion for an injunction was "stuck" in the district court and likely won't be decided until June. Denying Kennedy's motion to intervene in Missouri v. Biden will cause Kennedy "irreparable harm" because censorship of his protected speech on social media would prevent him for months from communicating with voters during his independent run for president, said Alito.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted the motion of the office of Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul (D) for a one-month extension, until Jan. 22, to file its responding brief to criminal defendant Keiron Sneed's cert petition (docket 23-5827), said its text-only order Wednesday. Sneed is seeking SCOTUS review of the Illinois Supreme Court's reversal of a lower court's denial of the state's motion to compel Sneed to produce his cellphone passcode (see 2311200026). Sneed’s supporters argue that the Illinois Supreme Court order would unlawfully require him to aid in his own prosecution of two counts of check forgery against him.

The office of Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul (D) is seeking a one-month extension, until Jan. 22, to file its responding brief to criminal defendant Keiron Sneed's U.S. Supreme Court cert petition (docket 23-5827) seeking review of the Illinois Supreme Court's reversal of a lower court's denial of the state's motion to compel Sneed to produce his cellphone passcode (see 2311200026). Sneed’s supporters argue that the order would unlawfully require him to aid in his own prosecution. The two counts of forgery Sneed was charged with stemmed from a pair of false paychecks payable to Sneed, which he endorsed then deposited via mobile deposit in his bank account. The police obtained a search warrant for Sneed’s cellphone but were unable to execute the warrant because the cellphone was passcode-protected and the defendant refused to provide the passcode. That’s when the state filed a motion to compel production of the passcode. Assistant Illinois AG Joshua Schneider “has familiarized himself with the case and researched some of the issues,” said the AG office’s letter to SCOTUS Tuesday. But Schneider requires additional time “to complete his research, draft the response, and have the response reviewed by several members of the office,” said the letter.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted the government petitioners' motion for a deadline extension to Dec. 19 for the filing of their opening brief on the merits to defeat the injunction, now under stay, to bar officials from the White House and four federal agencies from coercing or significantly encouraging social media companies to moderate their content. The brief from the respondents, including the Republican attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri, is now due Feb. 2. DOJ’s unopposed motion Friday said the briefing schedule, as extended, would still permit the case to be heard during the court’s March sitting.

The U.S. Supreme Court distributed for consideration at Friday’s justices’ conference Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Oct. 26 motion to intervene in the SCOTUS review of the injunction barring officials from the White House and four federal agencies from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to moderate their content, said a text-only docket entry Monday (docket 23-411). The injunction is stayed pending the resolution of the SCOTUS review (see 2310230003). SCOTUS previously said it distributed RFK Jr.’s motion to intervene for its Nov. 17 justices’ conference (see 2311010038), but no action apparently was taken then. The government petitioners (see 2311030001) and the Republican attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri (see 2311070005) all oppose the motion to intervene.

The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled Jan. 17 oral argument in the two cases in which the petitioners are asking SCOTUS to overrule the Chevron doctrine, said a text-only docket entry Friday in both cases. SCOTUS granted the petitioners cert May 1 in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (docket 22-451) (see 2305010058). When the court granted cert Oct. 13 to the second group of Chevron petitioners in Relentless v. Commerce Department (docket 22-1219), it ordered the clerk to establish a briefing schedule that would allow the two cases to be argued “in tandem” in the January argument session (see 2310130064). The Relentless petitioners’ opening brief on the merits was due by the close of business Monday, and their reply brief will be due Jan. 5, just 12 days before SCOTUS holds oral argument in the two cases. The government's answering brief in Relentless is due Dec. 15. SCOTUS. in an order list Monday, granted the Relentless petitioners' Nov. 8 motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix in the case (see 2311080076).

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his co-plaintiffs in Kennedy v. Biden made likely their last pitch Monday in support of their motion to intervene in the U.S. Supreme Court review of Missouri v. Biden and its social media injunction against officials from the White House and four federal agencies before the justices consider the motion’s fate at their Friday conference (see 2311010038). The facts of the case in Missouri v. Biden establish that the federal government “has specifically and successfully sought to censor” one of the incumbent president’s “leading electoral rivals,” said the Kennedy plaintiffs’ reply brief (docket 23-411) in reference to RFK Jr., who is running for the presidency as an independent.The aim is “to prevent that rival candidate from giving voice in the modern public square to information and ideas” critical of Biden administration policy, it said. “The threat to a fair presidential election is apparent,” it said. The “rival candidate in question,” RFK Jr., “is already a party to these proceedings by consolidation” in the U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana, it said. His First Amendment rights “will be adjudicated” by the Supreme Court, “yet he is not represented here,” it said. “No existing party” to Missouri v. Biden “stands on the same footing” as RFK Jr., it said. He’s “not only a leading presidential candidate but one of the leading targets” of the government’s "censorship campaign," it said. The Kennedy plaintiffs said they submitted their brief in reply to the opposition to the motion to intervene filed Nov. 6 by the Republican attorneys general and their five individual co-plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden, who argued that the motion is untimely and fails to meet the rare and extraordinary burden that SCOTUS has established for intervention after it has granted cert (see 2311070005). “It bears emphasis,” said the Kennedy plaintiffs’ reply brief, that the government defendants in Missouri v. Biden “have not filed an opposition to the motion to intervene.” But the government did file its opposition to RFK Jr.’s motion Nov. 2 (see 2311030001), and the Missouri respondents cited many of the same arguments as the government did in urging SCOTUS to deny Kennedy as an intervenor in the case.

Relentless, Huntress and Seafreeze Fleet, the second set of U.S. Supreme Court petitioners seeking to overrule Chevron (see 2310130064), seek leave to dispense with the requirement of a joint appendix, said their motion Wednesday (docket 22-1219). The government respondents, including the Commerce Department and Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, agree that a joint appendix isn’t necessary, said their motion. The case presents the “purely legal question” whether SCOTUS should overrule Chevron “or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency,” said the motion. The lower court opinions, plus the relevant portions of the underlying statute involved in the case, are reproduced in the appendix to the Relentless cert petition, it said. “The parties agree that no other portion of the record merits special attention that warrants the preparation and expense of a joint appendix,” it said. Preparation of a joint appendix also wouldn’t “materially assist” SCOTUS in its consideration of the case, it said. The Relentless petitioners’ opening brief is due Nov. 20 (see 2310190001).

The U.S. Supreme Court distributed for the justices’ Nov. 17 conference the Oct. 26 motion of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his two co-plaintiffs in Kennedy v. Biden to intervene in the SCOTUS review of the injunction imposed in Missouri v. Biden against officials from the White House and four federal agencies (see 2310270001), said a text-only docket entry Wednesday (docket 23-411). Though the respondent plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden, including the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, plus five individual social media users, “primarily assert their claims as censored speakers,” the plaintiffs in Kennedy v. Biden “assert the First Amendment claims of social media viewers and listeners all over the country,” said their motion to intervene. The Kennedy plaintiffs also seek leave to file a brief in opposition to the government’s effort to defeat the injunction. SCOTUS on Oct. 20 granted the government’s request for a full stay of the injunction pending the resolution of its review (see 2310230003). The injunction, should it take effect, bars officials from the White House, the surgeon general’s office, the FBI, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency from coercing or significantly encouraging the social media companies to moderate their content. FBI Director Christopher Wray told a Senate oversight hearing Tuesday that his agency was “having some interaction with social media companies, but all of those interactions have changed fundamentally in the wake of the court’s rules” in the injunction handed down July 4 (see 2310310047). The FBI made those changes out of “an abundance of caution, in order to make sure we don’t run afoul of any court ruling,” said Wray. He added that FBI officials have never tried to influence any social media platform decisions over constitutionally protected speech.

Amicus briefs filed on the merits in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (docket 22-451) “will be considered in connection” with Relentless v. Department of Commerce (docket 22-1219), said the U.S. Supreme Court Friday in a Relentless text-only docket entry. The petitioners in both cases ask SCOTUS to overrule the Chevron doctrine. When SCOTUS granted the Relentless cert petition Oct. 13, it directed the clerk to establish a briefing schedule that will allow Relentless to be argued “in tandem” with Loper Bright in the January argument session (see 2310130064). The petitioners’ brief on the merits in Relentless is due Nov. 20, and the government’s responding brief is due Dec. 15.