Replies

Here is a link, but if you receive an error, the text of the order is below:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.294.0_2.pdf

State of Georgia v. Joe Biden, et al.

For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Ruling on the Request for Preliminary Injunction,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 10] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES (“HHS”) and THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND
INFECTIOUS DISEASES (“NIAID”), and specifically the following employees of the HHS [Here it lists an entire list of employees of the HHS and other agencies] along with their secretary, directors, administrators, and employees ARE HEREBY
ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from taking the following actions as to social-media
companies:
(1) meeting with social-media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging,
pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content
containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms;
(2) specifically flagging content or posts on social-media platforms and/or forwarding
such to social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for
removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech;
(3) urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner social-media
companies to change their guidelines for removing, deleting, suppressing, or reducing content
containing protected free speech;
(4) emailing, calling, sending letters, texting, or engaging in any communication of any
kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for
removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech;
(5) collaborating, coordinating, partnering, switchboarding, and/or jointly working
with the Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project, the Stanford Internet Observatory, or
any like project or group for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any
manner removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content posted with social-media
companies containing protected free speech;
(6) threatening, pressuring, or coercing social-media companies in any manner to
remove, delete, suppress, or reduce posted content of postings containing protected free speech;
“Protected free speech” means speech that is protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution in accordance with jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court,Courts of Appeal and District Courts.

(7) taking any action such as urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any
manner social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce posted content protected
by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
(8) following up with social-media companies to determine whether the social-media
companies removed, deleted, suppressed, or reduced previous social-media postings containing
protected free speech;
(9) requesting content reports from social-media companies detailing actions taken to
remove, delete, suppress, or reduce content containing protected free speech; and
(10) notifying social-media companies to Be on The Lookout (“BOLO”) for postings
containing protected free speech.
This Preliminary Injunction precludes said named Defendants, their agents, officers, employees,
contractors, and all acting in concert with them from the aforementioned conduct. This Preliminary
Injunction also precludes said named Defendants, their agents, officers, employees, and
contractors from acting in concert with others who are engaged in said conduct.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following actions are NOT prohibited by this
Preliminary Injunction:
(1) informing social-media companies of postings involving criminal activity or
criminal conspiracies;
(2) contacting and/or notifying social-media companies of national security threats,
extortion, or other threats posted on its platform;
(3) contacting and/or notifying social-media companies about criminal efforts to
suppress voting, to provide illegal campaign contributions, of cyber-attacks against election
infrastructure, or foreign attempts to influence elections;

(4) informing social-media companies of threats that threaten the public safety or
security of the United States;
(5) exercising permissible public government speech promoting government policies
or views on matters of public concern;
(6) informing social-media companies of postings intending to mislead voters about
voting requirements and procedures;
(7) informing or communicating with social-media companies in an effort to detect,
prevent, or mitigate malicious cyber activity;
(8) communicating with social-media companies about deleting, removing,
suppressing, or reducing posts on social-media platforms that are not protected free speech by the
Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no security is required to be posted by Plaintiffs under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Preliminary Injunction Order shall remain in effect
pending the final resolution of this case or until further orders issue from this Court, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, or the Supreme Court of the United States.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERD that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 10] is
DENIED as to the following Defendants: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; U. S. Department
of Treasury; U.S. Election Assistance Commission; U. S. Department of Commerce and
employees Erica Jefferson, Michael Murray, Wally Adeyemo, Steven Frid, Brad Kimberly, and
Kristen Muthig; and Disinformation Governance Board (“DGB”) and its Director Nina Jankowicz.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no evidentiary hearing is required at this time.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ request for certification of this proceeding
as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Article 23 (b)(2) is DENIED.

[Signed by Terry A. Doughty
United States District Judge]