In a decisive ruling, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday suggested it may pare back a controversial gag order from the Trump administration that prevents government contractors from sharing information about COVID-19.
The court’s decision was spurred by a lawsuit brought by two government contractors, Palantir Technologies and Oracle America, who accused the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of stifling free speech when it issued the gag order earlier this summer.
The order prohibited any HHS contact from speaking out publicly about the coronavirus, or the effects of the national response to the virus. Palantir and Oracle argued that the order was overly broad, and that it trampled on their rights to speak out about the coronavirus pandemic.
The appeals court agreed that the gag order was likely unconstitutional, and suggested that it should be pared back to ensure that government contractors do not face prior restraint on their speech.
In particular, the court suggested that the order should be drafted more narrowly so that it would only prohibit contractors from publicly disclosing confidential information and third-party copyright material.
The appeals court’s ruling is an important step forward for free speech and transparency in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. The decision sends a clear message to the Trump administration that overly broad and sweeping gag orders are unconstitutional, and that the government cannot muzzle its contractors in order to prevent them from sharing crucial information about the virus.
At the same time, the court’s decision leaves open the possibility that the government could continue to pursue some limited gag orders, so long as they are narrowly tailored to protect confidential information without posing an undue burden on contractors’ rights.
For its part, the White House has yet to comment on the court’s ruling. It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will comply with the court’s suggestion and pare back the gag order, or if it will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
Regardless of what happens next, Wednesday’s ruling is a victory for free speech and for transparency during the coronavirus pandemic. By ruling that the gag order is likely unconstitutional, the appeals court has made it clear that the government cannot use overly broad gag orders to muzzle its contractors.
In a decisive ruling, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday suggested it may pare back a controversial gag order from the Trump administration that prevents government contractors from sharing information about COVID-19.
The court’s decision was spurred by a lawsuit brought by two government contractors, Palantir Technologies and Oracle America, who accused the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of stifling free speech when it issued the gag order earlier this summer.
The order prohibited any HHS contact from speaking out publicly about the coronavirus, or the effects of the national response to the virus. Palantir and Oracle argued that the order was overly broad, and that it trampled on their rights to speak out about the coronavirus pandemic.
The appeals court agreed that the gag order was likely unconstitutional, and suggested that it should be pared back to ensure that government contractors do not face prior restraint on their speech.
In particular, the court suggested that the order should be drafted more narrowly so that it would only prohibit contractors from publicly disclosing confidential information and third-party copyright material.
The appeals court’s ruling is an important step forward for free speech and transparency in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. The decision sends a clear message to the Trump administration that overly broad and sweeping gag orders are unconstitutional, and that the government cannot muzzle its contractors in order to prevent them from sharing crucial information about the virus.
At the same time, the court’s decision leaves open the possibility that the government could continue to pursue some limited gag orders, so long as they are narrowly tailored to protect confidential information without posing an undue burden on contractors’ rights.
For its part, the White House has yet to comment on the court’s ruling. It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will comply with the court’s suggestion and pare back the gag order, or if it will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
Regardless of what happens next, Wednesday’s ruling is a victory for free speech and for transparency during the coronavirus pandemic. By ruling that the gag order is likely unconstitutional, the appeals court has made it clear that the government cannot use overly broad gag orders to muzzle its contractors.
