The Overhyped Victory Lap: Examining the Missouri v. Biden Settlement

Last week, Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri engaged in a heated exchange with Stanford’s Daphne Keller during a Senate hearing. Schmitt, who initially filed the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit as Missouri’s Attorney General, accused Keller of Stanford’s alleged role in helping the Biden administration censor social media during the 2020 election. When Keller challenged his characterization, Schmitt became agitated, stating she could “read all about it in Missouri v. Biden.” Keller’s response – “The one you lost?” – clearly struck a nerve, triggering a visible display of frustration from the Senator.

Just a week later, Schmitt celebrated a “settlement” conveniently reached with the remaining plaintiffs by allies in the Trump administration. The framing was triumphant, with Schmitt proclaiming on social media: “Shorter version: We just won Missouri v. Biden.” He alleged the Biden administration colluded with Big Tech to silence Missouri families, censoring information about COVID-19, Hunter Biden’s laptop, the border situation, and the 2020 election, turning platforms like Facebook, X, YouTube into “private speech police.”

The New Civil Liberties Alliance, representing many plaintiffs, echoed this sentiment, calling the government’s social media censorship “the most massive suppression of speech in the nation’s history.” Even the Washington Post editorial board described the settlement as a “forceful affirmation of First Amendment principles,” and Reclaim the Net claimed it was a “formal, court-enforceable admission” of government pressure on social media platforms.

The Reality: A Case Built on Shifting Sands

However, a closer look reveals a different story. The case was, in essence, a dud. While the district court initially presented it as a landmark free speech attack, the Fifth Circuit significantly curtailed the injunction, and the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed it. The Court, on five separate occasions, found “no evidence” to support the claims of censorship, even criticizing the district court’s findings as “clearly erroneous.”

The “settlement” itself doesn’t support the widespread claims. Anyone reading the document would realize it addresses conduct the Supreme Court found no evidence of, while explicitly excluding what actually occurred. The settlement applies only to three individual plaintiffs (Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Jill Hines, and Jim Hoft) and two states, on five specific platforms, offering no protection to the broader public.

Crucially, paragraph 24 of the decree states it doesn’t prohibit the government from sharing information with social media companies or expressing disagreement with content, as long as it’s not coupled with threats of punishment – which, as the Supreme Court found, wasn’t happening in the first place. The decree essentially codifies the Biden administration’s actual conduct as permissible while prohibiting a fabricated version of events.

A Settlement Explicitly Not an Admission of Wrongdoing

The decree explicitly states it’s not an admission of wrongdoing and cannot be used as evidence. This directly contradicts claims like Reclaim the Net’s assertion that the U.S. government admitted to pressuring platforms. The settlement quotes Trump’s executive order on censorship as a political statement, not a factual finding.

The irony deepens when considering the plaintiffs themselves. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, original plaintiffs claiming censorship, had to withdraw from the case after being appointed to positions within the Biden administration – the very agencies they accused of censoring them. The Supreme Court also specifically noted the lack of evidence supporting their claims of censorship regarding the Great Barrington Declaration, explaining that Facebook blocked the site due to mass reporting by anti-vaxxers who misinterpreted the declaration’s content.

The Hypocrisy Continues: Trump Administration’s Actions

While celebrating this perceived victory, the Trump administration is engaging in conduct far exceeding anything the Biden administration was accused of. For example, Brendan Carr, Trump’s former FCC Chair, explicitly threatened Disney with regulatory retaliation over Jimmy Kimmel’s monologues, leading to the show’s removal – a clear case of coercion. Furthermore, Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice demanded Apple and Google remove the ICEBlock app from their stores, a direct order to suppress an application.

This hypocrisy highlights that the case wasn’t about free speech, but about building a narrative and creating political cover. As Renee DiResta documented, Senator Schmitt has a pattern of presenting lost cases as victories. Missouri v. Biden is a prime example: lose at the Supreme Court, negotiate a meaningless settlement, and declare total victory.

The Washington Post editorial board, while initially swayed, acknowledged the limited scope of the decree, noting it doesn’t address current government coercion of media companies. The settlement is, ultimately, a press release disguised as a legal document, prohibiting actions the Supreme Court found didn’t occur while permitting the actual conduct of the Biden administration.

The truth is clear: this was a loss, spun into a win for political gain. As Keller succinctly put it, “The one you lost.”

Further Reading:

• Lawfare: Schmitt’s Book and Weaponized Legal Narratives
• Washington Post Editorial: A settlement over social media censorship is a small win for free speech.