Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Missouri v. Biden

The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments over the Fifth Circuit’s grant of a preliminary injunction in Missouri v. Biden. As I mentioned in previous posts, the injunction would bar officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and Surgeon General’s office from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech.

My fellow plaintiffs and I welcome this opportunity to defend the First Amendment rights of all Americans in the U.S. Supreme Court. We expect to hear from the Court soon regarding the hearing dates—it could be in February or March.

The Fifth Circuit panel of judges last month upheld the key components of U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s July 4 preliminary injunction order, prohibiting named federal officials from coercing or significantly encouraging social media companies to suppress legal speech.

That decision vindicated our claims that we—and countless other Americans—were blacklisted, shadow-banned, deboosted, throttled, and suspended on social media as part of the government’s years-long censorship campaign orchestrated by the federal government.

The Biden Administration’s censorship regime has successfully suppressed perspectives contradicting government-approved views on hotly disputed topics such as whether natural immunity to covid exists, the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines, the virus’s origins, and mask mandate efficacy.

Beyond covid, the documents we’ve obtained on discovery demonstrate that the government was also censoring critiques of its foreign policy, monetary policy, election infrastructure, and lighting rod social issues from abortion to gender ideology.

The vast, coordinated, and well-documented effort has silenced influential, highly qualified voices including doctors and scientists like my co-plaintiffs Dr. Bhattacharya and Dr. Kulldorff, as well as those like Jill Hines who have tried to raise awareness of issues. Though the US Supreme Court temporarily stayed the Fifth Circuit’s injunction until they make a ruling, I believes the Justices are ultimately unlikely to permit the egregious First Amendment abridgements our case has exposed.

The Fifth Circuit recognized that the Plaintiffs did “not challenge the social-media platforms’ content-moderation policies.” Rather, Plaintiffs challenged the government’s unlawful efforts to influence “enforcement of those policies.” The government gravely harmed the ability of Americans to convey their views to the public, and it deprived Americans of their right to hear opinions that differ from the government’s. Judge Doughty strikingly described the Administration’s conduct as “arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States history” and “akin to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.” He was right, and the US Supreme Court must not permit it.

Here are some reactions to the news from our lawyers at NCLA:

“NCLA is thrilled to have the opportunity to vindicate the First Amendment rights of our clients, and all Americans, in the nation’s highest court. We are confident that after a thorough review of the disturbing facts in this important case—which involves unprecedented government-imposed, viewpoint-based censorship—the Court will recognize the grievous, unconstitutional nature of the government’s conduct and enjoin it.”
— Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

“We are disappointed Americans’ First Amendment rights will be vulnerable to government infringement until this case is decided. But we are confident this Court, as strong as it is on First Amendment issues, will rule against the government and uphold our clients’ rights and liberties.”
— John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA

“If anything, the Fifth Circuit’s decision did not go far enough in enjoining the reprehensible conduct exposed in this case. The facts of this case show government agencies censored speech in a deliberate effort to control the narrative on several controversial topics ahead of the last election. The First Amendment forbids such censorship, and the Supreme Court must never allow such mischief again, if we are to keep our democracy.”
— Mark Chenoweth, President, NCLA

Republished from the author’s Substack

Author

Aaron Kheriaty

Aaron Kheriaty, Senior Brownstone Scholar and 2023 Brownstone Fellow, is a psychiatrist working with the Unity Project. He is a former Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California at Irvine School of Medicine, where he was the director of Medical Ethics.

Up Next

Biden chose Venezuela over Canada for oil

Don't Miss

Canadian dentists desperate for details on federal dental care plan

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Watch your a** Petro. Trump threatens Colombian President

Entertainment / 6 hours ago

Nearly half of Netflix kids shows push LGBTQ content, watchdog warns

International / 9 hours ago

Poilievre, Carney show support for Maduro capture as NDP’s interim leader denounces it

International

Watch your a** Petro. Trump threatens Colombian President

Published on January 5, 2026

Todayville

MxM News

President Trump delivered one of his bluntest warnings yet to Colombian President Gustavo Petro during a Saturday press conference, brushing aside Petro’s claim that he had no concerns about his own safety following the U.S. military operation that captured Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro. Asked directly about Petro’s remarks, Trump pointed to Colombia’s role in the global cocaine trade and made clear he was not backing off earlier threats. Petro, Trump said, presides over cocaine production facilities whose product is being funneled into the United States, adding that the Colombian leader “does have to watch his a**.”

The exchange revived tensions that have been simmering since December, when Trump publicly warned Petro to shut down multiple major cocaine labs inside Colombia. At the time, Trump said U.S. authorities had precise intelligence on their locations and openly labeled Petro a “troublemaker,” cautioning him to “watch it.” Since returning to office, Trump has taken a far more confrontational posture toward leftist leaders in the hemisphere, and Petro — a self-described Marxist and former guerrilla — has repeatedly found himself in Washington’s crosshairs.

NOW – Trump says Colombian President Gustavo Petro has "to watch his ass" as he's making cocaine and sending it to the U.S. pic.twitter.com/H2ctUOmX9O

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) January 3, 2026

Petro’s clashes with the United States extend well beyond rhetoric. He was previously sanctioned by the Treasury Department and had his U.S. visa revoked after urging American service members to defy Trump’s orders and join what he described as a multinational force to “free Palestine.” He has also triggered diplomatic flare-ups over deportation flights, branded Trump an “obstacle to democracy,” and drew widespread condemnation last October after suggesting humanity should “get rid of Trump,” punctuating the comment with a finger snap during a televised interview.

Those remarks now hang over a far more consequential moment in U.S.–Latin American relations. Trump’s comments came in the immediate aftermath of the high-risk operation that resulted in Maduro’s capture and removal from Venezuela — a move the president hailed as a “brilliant operation.” Carried out under the banner of Operation Absolute Resolve, the joint military and law enforcement mission ended with Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, flown to the United States without the loss of American personnel or equipment. The takedown marked the most aggressive assertion of U.S. power in the region in decades, with administration officials openly framing it as a modern enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine — rechristened by Trump as the “Donroe Doctrine.”

Maduro’s legal exposure is extensive. Indicted in 2020, the longtime socialist ruler has been accused by U.S. prosecutors of leading the Cartel de los Soles, a transnational cocaine trafficking network. According to the indictment unsealed by Attorney General Pam Bondi, Maduro’s regime worked hand-in-glove with Colombian insurgent groups including the FARC and ELN, as well as Mexican cartels such as Sinaloa and Los Zetas, to move enormous quantities of cocaine into the United States. He and Flores now face charges ranging from narco-terrorism and cocaine importation conspiracy to weapons offenses involving machine guns and destructive devices.

Petro has tried, cautiously, to put distance between himself and the fallen Venezuelan dictator. In late 2025, he referred to Maduro as a dictator for the first time, but stopped short of acknowledging the narco-trafficking allegations that have followed Caracas for years. Even after Maduro’s arrest, Petro has continued to dismiss U.S. accusations as a manufactured “narrative,” despite a trail of indictments and evidence stretching back more than half a decade.

For Trump, the message Saturday was unmistakable. The Maduro operation was not a one-off, and public defiance from regional leaders will be met with pressure, exposure, and consequences. Petro may insist he has nothing to worry about — but Trump made clear he disagrees, and he is no longer content to issue quiet warnings.

Entertainment

Nearly half of Netflix kids shows push LGBTQ content, watchdog warns

Published on January 5, 2026

Todayville

MxM News

Nearly a quarter of TV-Y7-rated shows crossed into what it labeled explicit territory, including direct statements about sexual orientation or gender identity and depictions of related behavior. The group argued that this goes well beyond background representation and enters the realm of ideological messaging directed at children who are still years away from adolescence.

A new year-end analysis is raising fresh questions about what major streaming platforms are serving to young audiences, and whether parents are being given an honest picture of that content. According to a report released by Concerned Women for America, more than four in ten children’s programs labeled as suitable for general audiences on Netflix now include LGBTQ-themed material, despite ratings that suggest the shows are appropriate for very young viewers. The group’s review of 2025 programming found that 41 percent of Netflix shows rated TV-G contained what it described as overt gay or transgender content. Even in the TV-Y category, which is meant for children up to age seven, 21 percent of programs included similar material. For slightly older children, the share jumped sharply, with 41 percent of TV-Y7 programs containing LGBTQ themes. Taken together, CWA concluded that roughly one-third of all Netflix programming across the three primary child-rated categories — TV-G, TV-Y, and TV-Y7 — now includes such content.

Hey @netflix, what is going on here? pic.twitter.com/8XXY0neBnE

— Concerned Women for America LAC (@CWforA) December 9, 2025

Beyond simple presence, the report also attempted to measure intensity. Programs were categorized on a scale ranging from “meta” references and implied messaging to “queer-coded” characters and fully explicit content. CWA found that nearly a quarter of TV-Y7-rated shows crossed into what it labeled explicit territory, including direct statements about sexual orientation or gender identity and depictions of related behavior. The group argued that this goes well beyond background representation and enters the realm of ideological messaging directed at children who are still years away from adolescence.

The report also points to a noticeable pattern in reboots and long-running franchises. According to CWA, revived or extended versions of familiar children’s shows often introduce LGBTQ characters or storylines that were absent from the originals. Titles cited include The Magic School Bus, Power Rangers, The Baby-Sitter’s Club, She-Ra, and The Fairly OddParents. CWA said this trend suggests a deliberate choice by creators to reshape legacy brands that parents may trust based on earlier iterations.

To place the shift in a broader cultural context, the report traces the normalization of LGBTQ representation in television back several decades. When Ellen DeGeneres’ character came out on the sitcom Ellen in 1997, it was widely viewed as a watershed moment in entertainment. What once sparked national debate, the group notes, has since become routine — driven in part by sustained pressure from advocacy organizations such as GLAAD, which has tracked and promoted increased representation through its annual “Where We Are on TV” reports. GLAAD’s most recent assessment claimed another year-over-year increase in LGBTQ characters across television.

CWA argues that the implications are different when that momentum is applied to children’s programming. In its view, the growing volume of LGBTQ content aimed at young audiences — coupled with the unapologetic defense of those choices by showrunners and studios — reflects a belief within the industry that children’s entertainment should actively shape cultural attitudes rather than simply entertain. For parents relying on ratings systems to make informed decisions, the group warns, the labels no longer tell the full story.