Missouri v. Biden: Application of the "Close Nexus" test (See Brentwood Academy)

The Background Doctrine

The   government   cannot   abridge   free speech. U.S. Const. amend. I.  A private party, on the other hand, bears no such burden—it is “not  ordinarily constrained  by  the  First  Amendment.” That changes, though, when   a   private   party   is coerced  or  significantly  encouraged by the government to such a degree that its “choice—which  if  made  by  the government would be unconstitutional,—“must  in  law   be  deemed  to  be  that  of  the  State.” This is known as the close nexus test....But, on one hand there is persuasion, and on the other there is coercion and significant encouragement—two distinct means of satisfying the close nexus test. --p. 28-29

Encouragement

We     start     with     encouragement. To constitute “significant encouragement,” there must be such a “close nexus” between the parties that the government is practically “responsible” for the challenged decision....[S]ignificant  encouragement  requires“[s]omething more” than uninvolved oversight from the government. After all, there must be a “close nexus” that renders the government practically “responsible” for the decision. Taking that in  context,  we  find  that  the  clear  throughline  for  encouragement  in  our caselaw is that there must be some exercise of active (not passive), meaningful (impactful  enough  to  render  them  responsible)  control  on  the  part of the government over the private party’s challenged decision. Whether that is (1) entanglement in a party’s independent   decision-making   or   (2)   direct involvement  in  carrying  out the  decision  itself,  the  government  must encourage  the  decision  to  such  a  degree  that  we  can  fairly  say  it  was  the state’s  choice,  not  the  private  actor’s. [citing a case that held that "significant encouragement is met when 'the state has has some affirmative role, albeit one of encouragement short of compulsion,' in the decision.]

....

[In summary]:For encouragement, we read the law to require that a governmental actor exercise active, meaningful control over the private party’s decision in order to constitute  a state action. That reveals itself in (1) entanglement in a party’s independent decision-making or  (2) direct involvement in carrying out  the  decision  itself.

Coercion

p. 33: "Next, we take coercion—a separate and distinct means of satisfying the close nexus test.  Generally  speaking,  if the government  compels the private party’s decision, the result will be considered a state action. So,  what  is  coercion?  We  know  that  simply  “being regulated by the State does not make one a state actor.” Coercion, too, must be something more. But, distinguishing coercion from   persuasion   is   a   more   nuanced   task   than   doing   the   same   for encouragement.  Encouragement  is  evidenced  by  an  exercise  of  active, meaningful control, whether by entanglement in the party’s decision-making process or direct involvement in carrying out the decision itself. Therefore, it  may  be  more  noticeable  and,  consequently, more  distinguishable  from persuasion. Coercion, on the other hand, may be more subtle. After all, the state may advocate—even forcefully—on behalf of its positions....

The  Second  Circuit  starts  with  the  premise  that  a  government message  is  coercive—as  opposed  to  persuasive—if  it  “can  reasonably  be interpreted as  intimating that some form of punishment or adverse regulatory action will follow the failure to accede to the official’s request.”

....

Again,  honing  in  on  whether  the government  “intimat[ed]  that  some  form  of  punishment”  will  follow  a “failure to accede,” we parse the speaker’s messages to assess the (1) word choice and tone, including the overall “tenor” of the parties’ relationship; (2) the recipient’s perception; (3) the presence of authority, which includes whether it is reasonable to fear retaliation; and (4) whether the speaker refers to adverse consequences.

 So, what do y'all think about Missouri v. Biden? Was the involvement of the White House significant enough to constitute state action by a close nexus amounting to encouragement? Coercion? 

 See page 61-62:

But,  the  Supreme  Court  has  rarely  been  faced  with  a  coordinated campaign of this magnitude orchestrated by federal officials that jeopardized a  fundamental  aspect  of  American  life.  Therefore,  the  district  court  was correct in its assessment—“unrelenting pressure” from certain government officials likely “had the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free  speech  postings  by  American  citizens.”

 

And notice also that when government censors speakers it also censors everyone who was denied access to the censored information. Everyone in this room who is on social media was denied the right to receive the information that was censored by this partnership between government and social media platforms. 

The Supreme Court is going to decide this issue soon. We need clear guidance about when persuasion becomes coercion or encouragement.