This week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could determine how much of a role the federal government can play in policing American speech online.

The case, Murphy versus Missouri, centers on the

constitutional questions posed by the government influencing or coercing

social media platforms to suppress disfavored speech.

In this episode, we talked to a legal expert

about the potential landmark First Amendment case

and which way the justices appear to be leaning.

I'm Daly Weyer, editor-in-Chief John Bickley with Georgia Howe.

It's Sunday March 24th and this is an extra edition of Morning Wire.

Joining us now to discuss Murphy versus Missouri is

Kerry Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network.

Hey Gary, so before we get into the oral arguments before the Supreme Court

this week, let's first discuss the lower

court's ruling. Judge Dowdy found that seven groups of Biden administration

officials violated the First Amendment by pressuring the social media platforms into censorship.

Remind us what exactly did Dowdy rule?

So originally he said that the federal government had violated the First Amendment because they were encouraging content

moderation by these social media platforms and that made those platforms effectively state actors.

So the government obviously wouldn't be able to say, well, we disagree with your views on, say, vaccines in this case, and we're not going to allow you to speak.

The government couldn't do that. And so the question is then, at what point then is the government either using another entity

as a state actor they become effectively subject to the first moment because they are state actors

or at what point are they being coerced by the government by these actions.

...