A federal appeals court has blocked a move by the states of Louisiana and Missouri to depose former Biden administration press secretary Jen Psaki in a lawsuit accusing the administration of illegally pressuring social media companies to censor online content.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Jan. 5 put a stop to the state attorneys general’s attempt to conduct the deposition, concluding that Psaki lacked adequate first-hand information about the social media policies at hand to justify such questioning of a high-ranking federal official.
“As press secretary, Psaki’s role was to inform the media of the administration’s priorities, not to develop or execute policy,” the court said. “Unsurprisingly, then, the record does not demonstrate that Psaki has unique first-hand knowledge that would justify the extraordinary measure of deposing a high-ranking executive official.”
The appeals court also criticized district court Judge Terry Doughty’s conclusion that there were no reasonable alternatives to deposing Psaki.
“Our review … reveals a clear alternative that both parties actually had accepted,” the court’s opinion said. “Each stated in district court that Psaki’s deposition was unnecessary at this time. The defendants proposed that they amend interrogatory (written) responses after consulting with Psaki. …”
The Louisiana Attorney General’s Office indicated that the advancement of the litigation would continue in the wake of the appeals court ruling.
“We have no problem with the court’s request,” Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said in a statement emailed to the Louisiana Record. “We look forward to obtaining more discovery.”
Landry’s office this week released email chains between the federal government and Facebook that it said demonstrated how a video by Fox News host Tucker Carlson was “demoted 50% pending a fact-checking period.” No actual Facebook fact checking took place, the office said.
The appeals court’s central concern was to ensure that depositions of high government officials should not occur unless “extraordinary circumstances” exists, the opinion states.
“That rule is a constant across the decades regardless of who the officials are,” the justices said. “The circumstances have not yet been shown as extraordinary in light of the possibility of alternatives.”