The problem with censorship is the Constitution.
The first Amendment prohibits congress from passing any laws that restrict free speech. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” [1]
The Fourteenth Amendment, via the incorporation doctrine extended that protection to state assemblies. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [2] But do you notice anything missing?
It has been assumed since the moment the Bill of Rights became the law of the land: submitted to the states on September 25, 1789 with the states ratifying 10 of the 12 suggested rights officially adopting them on December 15, 1791: that such rights were universal. Except the wording doesn’t say that in the one right of concern here. The right to free speech. Only Congress was prohibited from making a law that abridged the freedom of speech, or religion, or peaceable assembly, or the press. Technically (and Democrats rely on these) the other branches of the Federal Government (and therefore the states as well) were not so restricted.
Democrats really like to take things out of context and read them to their own benefit. The Biden Administration read the first Amendment and determined they were not the legislative branch so there was no restriction of their restricting free speech as they were not passing any laws. Bondi and her team read the same thing and determined otherwise.
In our case, the same assumption was made by a state. The State of Arizona acted to enlist Google to censor a United States Court.
Today, March 25, 2026 the Department of Justice, very well managed by Attorney General Pam Bondi, released the following:
“The Justice Department this week announced the settlement of litigation alleging that the Biden administration induced social media companies to suppress disfavored speech by American citizens. The lawsuits alleged that inducing social media companies to suppress disfavored speech violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The settlements implement President Trump’s Executive Order, entitled ‘Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,’ acknowledging that ‘the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve.’ 90 Fed. Reg. 8243 (Jan. 28, 2025).
‘The Biden administration coerced social media companies to stifle free speech that they disapproved of,’ said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. ‘These Department of Justice settlements are key steps in undoing those abuses of the First Amendment, especially against conservative media. We will never waver on protecting Americans’ right to speak freely.’
‘This Department is committed to upholding the First Amendment rights of all Americans,’ said Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, of the Civil Division. ‘No one should have their right to engage in constitutionally protected speech online infringed by unlawful government coercion of social media companies.’
The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana found that U.S. Government actors likely had caused certain plaintiffs to be deplatformed by major social media companies. Now, the Department’s agreements with plaintiffs avoid the need for continued litigation in these cases. Missouri v. Biden, No. 3:22-cv-1213 (W.D. La.); Children’s Health Defense v. Biden, No. 23-cv-0381 (W.D. La.).
Securing the right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech is a priority of the Department of Justice. ” [3]
But there is still that missing element.
“The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Murthy v. Missouri (2024) that plaintiffs, including the states of Missouri and Louisiana and five individual social media users, lacked Article III standing to challenge the federal government’s alleged coercion of social media platforms to censor speech. The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a “substantial risk” of future injury traceable to specific government actions, as required for injunctive relief.” [4]
Well that topic is deeply ingrained as part of the case: in Re. Lee Kent Hempfling et. Ux an original jurisdiction case filed with the Supreme Court of the United States in February of 2022 as part of the 2023 term. See “The SCOTUS case IS NOT DISMISSED!” [5] for a status report of a hidden in plain site criminal case.
Part of that case involves Google censoring the United States Ninth Circuit Court and the Phoenix District Court at the direction of the Attorney General’s Office of the State of Arizona. [6]
The solution to all government censorship (the moratorium invoked by the Trump Administration is a nice beginning) is contained in this case.
The argument is simple.
As a Government made up of co-equal branches, The Legislative Article 1 Branch, The Executive Article 2 Branch and the Judicial Article 3 Branch: any prohibition of one branch must be equally borne by the other branches or the very definition of co-equal ceases to exist. If one branch is prohibited from doing something so shall the other branches or that one branch is subservient to the other branches. Power would exist un-equal. And it has until Democrats AND ARIZONA STATE REPUBLICANS decided to use that loophole and were caught at it.
Since the case in Re Lee Kent Hempfling et. Ux was not defended by the Government (would have been hard to do when the Government had to prosecute it) then arguments within the filing must be held true. I cannot stipulate the wording or the reasoning of the final outcome of issues within the case, but I can mention that yes, Justice Kagan I know you agreed with The Chief on Copyrights (yes this case also destroys the DMCA) and disagreed on most everything else; but the fact remains: The State of Arizona under Attorney General Mark Brnovich (since deceased [7]) ILLEGALLY used Google’s Search Engine [8,9] to block access to anything related to the Arizona District Court Case Hempfling v Volkmer and its Ninth Circuit Appeals case [10] in the first attack against the United States of America by a State; SINCE THE CIVIL WAR.
Bondi has cleared up the pending litigation Missouri v. Biden, No. 3:22-cv-1213 (W.D. La.); Children’s Health Defense v. Biden, No. 23-cv-0381 (W.D. La.) so I know I can grant a gold plated TUIT to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Time to publish oh great judicial body.
Time to end this .
NOW!
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/
[2] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-4-3/ALDE_00013746/
[3] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-lawsuits-challenging-biden-administrations-alleged-social-media
[4] https://search.brave.com/search?q=censorship+scotus+no+standing
[5] https://leehempfling.com/legal/court-dockets/the-scotus-case-is-not-dismissed-heres-proof-pay-attention-google-ai/
[6] https://leehempfling.com/legal/corruption/arizona-state-government-ordered-censorship-and-obstruction-of-justice-with-google/
[7] https://leehempfling.com/legal/corruption/supreme-court-of-the-united-states-defendant-mark-brnovich-is-dead/
[8] https://leehempfling.com/legal/corruption/google-caught-censoring-the-united-states-of-america/
[9] https://leehempfling.com/legal/corruption/uncovering-the-secret-google-world-of-corrupt-search-censorship/
[10] https://leehempfling.com/legal/court-dockets/hempfling-v-volkmer/