Missouri v. Biden: Memorandum in Support of Further Discovery and Opposition to Dismissal of the Complaint. 1/2
About three weeks ago, Judge Doughty asked the parties to brief him on:
-
Why he shouldn't dismiss the case given the SCOTUS decision—and
-
Whether or not the Plaintiffs needed more discovery to prove they could meet the (absurd) standing threshold the court set in place.
• This will be a thread of the Plaintiff's response to the Judge's request. They started this lawsuit because of public comments made by officials in the Biden administration. When granted preliminary injunction-related discovery, they uncovered a coordinated censorship campaign—with some of the justices on the SCOTUS remarking this was the "most massive attack against free speech in United States history."
• They make sure to point out that while both the district court and the 5th circuit court decided to uphold the injunction based on the merits of the case, the SCOTUS declined to do so and said so. They make sure to clarify that SCOTUS at no point did SCOTUS fail to allege standing adequate to maintain the lawsuit—ONLY for the INJUNCTION.
• They point out that there is a significantly higher burden for standing at the preliminary injunction stage when it comes to proving all aspects of a claim—but argue that the court already ruled in their favor on the motion to dismiss. Hence, they are, in fact, entitled to more discovery.
• After all, how are they supposed to prove their case without discovery? What is important here is that Missouri et al. argue that the SCOTUS decision wasn't on the case's merits but on the TEMPORARY INJUNCTION. That ruling doesn't negate the rest of what has happened in the case.
• They are saying, "Judge, this step you are requesting is unnecessary. We already demonstrated there is a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of this case. Why go through this exercise in discovery again? Let's just move to normal discovery in the case and get this show on the road."
• Not only that, but they are also asking for permission to amend their complaint to add the "disinformation dozen," one of whom is RFK—stating that the Judge should permit that as a standalone to remedy his potential worries, or BETTER YET, in addition to, as they absolutely meet the burden SCOTUS requires now.
• They reiterate what some SCOTUS justices have said. If the court dismisses this case without allowing more discovery in the normal course or an amended complaint, it will reward the government for its censorship activities.
• Here, they argue that the Supreme Court's ruling on standing ONLY concerned the injunction, where a standing requirement is much higher. I (and others) have stressed this since the day the Supreme Court ruled.
• Additionally, the court has already denied the motion to dismiss. There isn't one currently on the docket. Thus, the Judge has already ruled that the case should continue, so why change that now, voluntarily? No circumstances in the case or fact pattern have changed, only the SCOTUS overturning the injunction.
• Here, they mention that even since discovery, evidence has been uncovered that establishes what the government has done and is doing. They have refused to provide it for the court's consideration. If history is any guide, pulling at that onion will unleash even more, hence the need to continue.
https://www.uncoverdc.com/2024/09/19/new-filing-in-missouri-v-biden-argues-for-more-discovery-not-dismissal