Republican who tried to stop Biden administration 'coercing' social media companies to 'censor' posts says he hopes Supreme Court 'sides with the Constitution' after justices appeared to side with White House

The Supreme Court expressed skepticism about a Republican-led effort to stop the Biden administration's coercion with social media companies, sparking GOP outrage at 'un-American' collusion they say must be reigned in.

The court heard a critical First Amendment case Monday that could determine whether the Biden administration illegally pressured social media companies to moderate posts it disliked on topics like COVID-19, 2020 election security and other conservative views.

The questions posed by the justices Monday during oral arguments provided insights into where they stand on the matter - and most seemed skeptical of the Republican-led states' arguments against the administration.

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., who led the landmark case while previously serving as Missouri attorney general, exclusively told DailyMail.com he hopes the court 'sides with the Constitution and protects freedom of speech.' 

'This case deals with speech in the virtual town square,' he continued. 'We must ensure that the federal government is not able to outsource their censorship to third parties, which is what this case directly deals with.' 

'Biden White House officials coercing and colluding with some of the largest companies in the world to censor Americans was an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment,' he added.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 2021 by the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, along with five individual social media users.

Missouri v. Biden case examines whether the Biden administration coerced social media companies to throttle speech it disliked 

Anti-vaccine activists rallied outside the Supreme Court Monday 

President Joe Biden and his administration worked with Meta, Twitter and YouTube to remove content on COVID-19 and the 2020 election that the government deemed was misinformation

'My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways,' liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson told Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga.

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, fired back in a reactionary interview saying Brown Jackson is wrong. 

That's exactly what the First Amendment is 'supposed to do for goodness,' the Republican stated.

'It was literally one of the craziest things I've ever seen,' he added. ''That is frightening because she really believes that.'

Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts noted how the government is 'not monolithic.' 

He said social media companies have communications professionals 'have people they go to, probably in the government, to say, 'Hey, they're trying to get me to do this,' and that person may disagree with what the government's trying to do.'

'That has to dilute the concept of coercion significantly, doesn't it?' Roberts added.  

Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that the government working with publishers is not uncommon, noting that there are 'press people throughout the federal government who regularly call up the media and berate them.' 

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., who filed the case during his time as Missouri attorney general, said he hopes the Supreme Court sides with his home state

Protestors demonstrated outside of the Supreme Court Monday during the hearing

However, conservative Justice Samuel Alito noted how the Biden administration appeared to leverage its influence over the companies, saying 'it's treating Facebook and these other platforms like their subordinates.' 

'This was censorship by surrogate,' House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, who is himself investigating tech companies for colluding with the federal government, continued. 

'This was big government telling Big Tech to take down speech they disagreed with,' he added. 

The Judiciary Committee earlier wrote on X that the 'un-American' collusion between the Biden administration and Big Tech must end. 

Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., similarly said its a 'bad idea' to allow the federal government 'to go to the the social media companies and say, 'no one should be allowed to say that.''

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., called the case a 'critical examination of government overreach.'

'The Biden administration and FBI's efforts to influence Big Tech into silencing dissent tramples on the 1st Amendment. Our focus must be on preventing government censorship, not compelling private entities to act as censors. This case could redefine our free speech.'

Following the arguments, some legal scholars also noted how the court appears unconvinced of the states' case, noting how the justices appear 'hung up' on the claim the Biden administration 'coerced' the companies. 

'Although the trial judge called it 'the most massive attack against free speech in US history,' there doesn't seem to be a SCOTUS majority ready to rule against [government] actions to suppress social-media posts & accounts,' Ilya Shapiro, Manhattan Institute director of constitutional studies, wrote on X Monday.

'Most of the justices seemed to be hung up on how the government's encouragement and exhortation constitutes 'coercion,' even though the central feature of the case is that it shows how tech companies act as government agents without the need for a metaphorical gun to the head,' Shapiro continued.

George Washington University law professor and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley also noted the plaintiffs' struggles during the hearing.

'Counsel for Louisiana faced withering questioning from the three most liberal justices but also some tough questions from others, particularly Roberts and Kagan,' he wrote on X.  

Aguiñaga, the lawyer for Louisiana, opened up the Supreme Court argument by stating: 'Pressuring platforms in back rooms shielded from public view is not using the bully pulpit at all. That's just being a bully.'

The Biden administration, meanwhile, argued it has appropriately used its bully pulpit - or executive influence - to flag concerning communications to the companies. 

'When the government persuades a private party not to distribute or promote someone else's speech that's not censorship that's persuading a private party to do something that they're lawfully entitled to do,' Biden administration lawyer Brian Fletcher argued Monday. 

'There are lots of contexts where government officials can persuade private parties to do things that the officials couldn't do directly.'

Fletcher noted how lawmakers used their influence to convince colleges to do more to prevent the spread of anti-semitism in the wake of the October 7 massacre, saying that could be viewed as the government infringing the students' First Amendment protections. 

Some Supreme Court justices appeared hesitant to agree with some claims made by the plaintiffs Monday

Lawyers for the Biden administration argued that the White House did not coerce the social media companies to act on their behalf

Social media apps Facebook and Twitter (now X) play critical roles in this case

Still, filings in the case reveal multiple instances where communications between the executive branch and the companies preceded posts being removed at the request of government officials. 

Many of the posts that were discussed between the White House officials and social media companies involved communications about COVID-19 and the associated vaccines. 

Other posts that received suppression, according to the states, referenced election interference, the state of the economy, criticisms of President Biden, mail in voting and more. 

According to filings, employees at Facebook's parent company Meta, Twitter, now X, and YouTube were in direct communication with Biden administration officials who directed they take down 'misinformation.'

The case has already been affirmed by two lower courts, including the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled federal officials cannot attempt to 'coerce or significantly encourage' changes or removal in online content.

In October, the Supreme Court put the lower court's injunction on hold pending the review of the case by the justices.

The social media companies themselves are not involved in the case. 

The Supreme Court's ruling is expected by the end of June.