Law Offices of Andrew N Cassas, PA

03/25/2026

‘Ministry of Truth’ Case Ends With 10-Year Ban on Government Censorship
The Trump administration has settled Missouri v. Biden, a lawsuit against 'the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history'
Yudi Sherman
Mar 25, 2026



A major legal battle over government censorship came to a close Tuesday, with the Trump administration agreeing to a decade-long ban on key federal agencies pressuring social media companies to suppress lawful speech.
The agreement, which concludes the long-running case known as Missouri v. Biden, prohibits the Surgeon General’s office, the CDC, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) from pressuring social media companies — through legal, regulatory, or economic means — to remove constitutionally protected speech for the next ten years.
According to journalist Justin Hart, the settlement also takes direct aim at the language federal agencies had used to justify their interventions. “The Parties agree that government, politicians, media, academics, or anyone else applying labels such as ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ or ‘malinformation’ to speech does not render it constitutionally unprotected,” the consent decree states.
The case was first brought in 2023 after it became evident that the White House and agencies including CISA and the FBI had been working hand-in-glove with social media platforms to suppress certain viewpoints — among them skepticism about COVID-19 vaccines, questions about the lab-leak theory, claims about the Hunter Biden laptop, and challenges to the integrity of the 2020 election. Evidence also showed that officials had sought to extend their reach to Americans’ private WhatsApp messages about COVID vaccines, and that censorship efforts extended to topics including gender ideology, climate policy, abortion, gas prices, and even mockery of Joe Biden.
At one point during litigation, the FBI argued that its roughly 50% success rate in getting content taken down was itself proof it wasn’t “coercing” anyone — an argument that struggled to land with the courts.
In a July 4, 2023 ruling, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty granted an injunction against the Biden administration. He delivered a blistering assessment, writing that the U.S. government appeared to have taken on a role “similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’” and may have engineered “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” He was equally pointed about whose speech had been targeted: “It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech.”
A Fifth Circuit appeals court upheld that ruling, but the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately reversed it on standing grounds. The Court held that the remaining plaintiffs couldn’t demonstrate sufficient personal injury to support a preliminary injunction. The case returned to the district level, and negotiations ultimately produced Tuesday’s consent decree.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who was among the original plaintiffs and is now director of the National Institutes of Health, was required to switch to the government’s side of the case after his appointment. He reacted to the settlement Tuesday by celebrating his “loss.”
“Huzzah! The consent decree in Missouri v. Biden is a historic victory for free speech in the US,” he wrote on X. “Though I had to switch to the government side in the case after I became NIH director, I’ve never been more pleased by ‘losing’ in my life. A huge win for all Americans.”
The settlement echoes an executive order President Trump signed in January, which declared that the federal government under the Biden administration had “infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.”
The consent decree’s ten-year horizon means the restrictions will outlast the current administration — a feature that transforms what could have been a policy position into an enforceable legal commitment.

07/14/2025

After 104 days of sniping between the two chambers in Florida’s Republican majority Legislature, the session ended late Monday night with a vote on the state’s budget. But before the tw…

06/24/2025

Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law on Monday a pair of bills designed to help assist Florida condominium owners with crippling assessments stemming from laws passed in 2022 in the wake of the 2021 S…

01/24/2025

Supreme Court Permits Enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA)

On Thursday January 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to continue enforcing the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). The CTA is a groundbreaking law requiring millions of U.S. corporations, including community associations, to disclose information about their owners and board members (“beneficial owners”).
The Supreme Court’s decision (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a653_c07d.pdf) lifted an injunction that had temporarily blocked enforcement of the CTA. This new ruling permits the government to proceed with enforcement of the CTA while legal challenges continue in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit where oral arguments are scheduled for late March.

01/06/2025

REAL ESTATE UPDATE 2024
Previously, sellers of real property were not required to disclose past flood damage. Effective October 1, 2024 House Bill 1049 provides that homebuyers are entitled to information regarding the property they are considering buying. Sellers are now required to disclose any flood-related insurance claims or federal aid tied to the property, and the law makes clear that standard home insurance policies do not cover flood damage. Specifically, the new rules require:

• The form’s title must be labeled “FLOOD DISCLOSURE.”
• A flood insurance policy disclaimer must be provided stating, “Flood Insurance: Homeowners’ insurance policies do not include coverage for damage resulting from floods. Buyer is encouraged to discuss the need to purchase separate flood insurance coverage with Buyer’s insurance agent.”
• The seller must state whether he or she has filed a claim with an insurance provider relating to flood damage on the property.
• The seller must state whether he or she has received federal assistance for flood damage to the property.

Call now to connect with business.

11/12/2024

11/12/2024

https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1856107909861593448?t=BIBL6D0O4rpaHx5VQPGbrw&s=19

10/21/2024

This has to be one of the most egregious legal results I've ever seen.

Oct 21, 2024 - The Gold Report Staff - As part of a custody battle, a Tennessee judge ordered a family to vaccinate children who had never been vaccinated

07/03/2024

The Supreme Court just downgraded ‘the insurrection’ to trespassing
BY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 06/29/24

The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday in Fischer v. U.S. struck down one of the most common charges against January 6 defendants. “Obstruction of an official proceeding” had been used in hundreds of cases, and those convictions are now invalid.

But the biggest impact of the decision may occur elsewhere.

For years, calling January 6 an “insurrection” has been a litmus test for press, pundits and politicians. Members of Congress such as Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) claimed a conspiracy of “armed and organized insurrectionists.” The claim is legally absurd but politically advantageous.

It now seems like the insurrection increasingly looks more like a legal case of mass trespass and unlawful entry.

I have always believed that criminal charges were warranted for the riot of Jan. 6, 2021. But this week’s decision shows how the Justice Department has wrongly prosecuted hundreds of people for the obstruction crime. It was all of what Justice Department official Michael Sherwin proudly declared in a television interview, that “our office wanted to ensure that there was shock and awe…it worked because we saw through media posts that people were afraid to come back to D.C. because they’re, like, ‘If we go there, we’re gonna get charged.’ …We wanted to take out those individuals that essentially were thumbing their noses at the public for what they did.”

The Fischer opinion will bring an end to a minority of cases that were based entirely on the charge under 1512(c)(2). The section had been enacted after the Enron scandal in 2001 with the collapse of an energy company accused of corporate fraud. It was designed to allow criminal charges for the destruction of evidence in the form of documents and records.

The Justice Department chose to interpret that provision to broadly include any obstruction of any legal proceeding, and then used it in hundreds of Jan. 6 cases. At least a quarter of the prosecutions included this charge. Most also included other charges, including trespass and unlawful entry. A small number involved serious offenses like violence against officers and an even smaller number involved charges for “seditious conspiracy.”

For most cases, the decision may require resentencing. Others with pending charges will go to trial without an obstruction claim.

One of those is former President Donald Trump. Special Counsel Jack Smith brought four charges in Washington, D.C.: obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy against rights. The Fischer ruling means that half of the indictment would be dropped. Smith could be compelled to seek a superseding indictment.

The loss of the obstruction counts seemed to rip the wings off the plane that Smith has been trying to get off the ground before November. It was the obstruction theory that held the indictment together — the notion that Trump was directing his followers to stop the certification from occurring by charging the Congress.

The court rejected this theory and noted that that the “novel interpretation would criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison.” Smith has been here before. He was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in his conviction of Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. Notably, as with today, the court found his theory to be dangerously “boundless.”

Smith has made a trial before the election his highest priority. Judge Tanya Chutkan has been all-in on that effort with Smith, including accepting his obstruction interpretation. She may allow Smith to go forward on the two remaining counts, but that may depend on what occurs next when the Supreme Court issues its ruling on presidential immunity, including a possible remand to the trial court for further proceedings that could extend beyond the election.

The obstruction charges helped complete the insurrection narrative for many in the press and politics. I have long disagreed with that claim. As shown by polls, most citizens view January 6 as a protest that became a riot, not as an attempt to overthrow the government.

I was contributing to the coverage on January 6. I did not agree with then-President Trump’s claims to challenge the certification, and I criticized his speech while he was still giving it. But that speech was entirely protected, in my view, under the First Amendment. Importantly, it included a call to his supporters to remain peaceful.

The insurrection myth was used previously in court as Democratic secretaries of state sought to bar Trump from ballots under a meritless constitutional claim that was rejected unanimously by the Supreme Court.

Now the remaining charges are largely for trespass and unlawful entry into the Capitol. Yet, the myth will continue as a mantra in the media that this was an attempt to overthrow the government.

The disconnect is not simply with the cases. Biden continues to claim that “democracy is on the ballot,” and many have claimed that this will be our last election if Trump wins. This hyperbolic claim ignores the many safeguards in our constitutional system, the very safeguards that led to the certification of Biden’s victory in 2020.

The greatest problem is that Biden’s line about democracy is not resonating with the public, despite the virtual echo chamber in the media. According to a new poll of swing-state voters from the Washington Post and the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, over half of respondents view Biden as a threat to democracy and not its savior. Forty-four percent said that Trump would do a better job at protecting democracy compared to just 33 percent who believe Biden would be better for democracy.

Part of the problem is the array of court decisions finding that Biden has repeatedly violated the Constitution, including engaging in racial discrimination and attempting to rule by circumventing Congress.

Biden has also become the most anti-free speech president since John Adams, including the establishment of a massive censorship system described by one court as “Orwellian.” As I discuss in my new book, the Biden administration has brought together an unprecedented alliance of government, corporate and academic interests to target and silence those with opposing views.

These, combined with the weaponization of the legal system and his party’s efforts at ballot cleansing, hardly make Biden look like the defender of democracy to many citizens.

For those who have been found guilty under these unlawful charges, it is a bit late to convert the Justice Department’s “shock and awe” into a mere “aw shucks.” It can also seem just awful for many citizens who see the political rage of Jan. 6 replaced by a type of state rage. As a result, Fischer suggests for many that democracy may be on the ballot, but the threat is not exactly what the press and the pundits have suggested.

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School and author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

08/28/2023

A front-page story on Aug. 21 in The Washington Post sounds a false alarm: “American democracy is cracking. These forces help explain why,” by Dan Balz and Clara Ence Morse. The analysis is incoherent, betrays constitutional ignorance and misunderstands the purpose of government — not majority...

02/22/2023

FLORIDA'S NEW PROPERTY INSURANCE LAW
On December 16, 2022, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law a bill overhauling Florida's property insurance laws. Among many provisions, SB 2A created statutory language for insurers to include mandatory binding arbitration in their policies on a conditional basis. One condition is that a homeowner could agree to the arbitration provisions in exchange for an "actuarially sound credit or premium discount" for the policyholder, whatever that means. Furthermore, the law bans policyholders from entering into Assignment of Benefit contracts with vendors, rendering them void, invalid and unenforceable. Previously, policyholders would enter into agreements with contractors who would "step into their shoes" and negotiate with the insurance companies for their services. Now homeowners will be responsible to pay for the costs of emergency repairs, mold remediation and other urgent and necessary services out-of-pocket. Furthermore, the statutory attorneys fees provision has been abolished. Prior to this law, if an insured had to sue their property insurance carrier for nonpayment, delay in payment or underpayment of a claim, the insurance company was responsible for the homeowner's attorneys fees. Now insureds will have to pay out-of-pocket for their attorneys fees and costs if they want to challenge the insurance companies’ coverage decisions. This will be a major infringement on their right of access to the courts, as the insurance companies have much deeper pockets. (The Florida Supreme Court has previously held that it is an undue hardship upon beneficiaries of policies to be compelled to reduce the amount of their insurance by paying attorneys fees when suits are necessary in order to collect that which they are entitled.) Additionally, if the insured wants to pursue a bad faith action against the insurer, it must first obtain a final judgment against them. The new law further slashes the time allowed for homeowners to report a claim from three years to one year, and 18 months to file a supplemental claim. Policyholders of Citizens Insurance Company (the state–backed insurer of last resort) must show that other insurance premiums are more than 20% of Citizens renewal premium to maintain their policy with Citizens, once their policies renew after April 1, 2023. Additionally, all Citizens policyholders will be required to obtain flood insurance from a private insurer to maintain coverage with Citizens, regardless of the property's location. If there is a claim for water damage, the policyholders must prove that the damage was not caused by flooding. This is a burden that many insureds will not be able to meet without assistance from costly experts.
The only provision that could possibly benefit homeowners is that the insurers must make a coverage decision within 60 days after receiving a notice of claim, down from the previous 90 days. Yet this provision provides zero relief for homeowners if and when the insurance companies take longer to decide. However, homeowners are required to respond to insurers requests for material claims information within 10 days of the request, or else their coverage decision will be extended.
Once again, the powerful insurance industry has been granted a means to significantly reduce a homeowner's rights while increasing their overall profits. Insurance companies claim that this new law will reduce policyholders’ premiums and make companies more competitive in Florida. Coming from the mouths of a multibillion-dollar industry, I wouldn't hold my breath!

08/31/2022

Calvary Chapel Victory
San Jose, CA
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Calvary Chapel, a church in San Jose, California, that refused to close during the pandemic will not be required to pay more than $200,000 in fines that were imputed against them. This is a massive victory for religious freedom as other public places such as grocery stores were not held to the same restrictions in California as places of worship. Pastor McClure of Calvary Chapel refused to comply with California’s tyrannical mandates imposed on his church and congregation.
The Court of Appeals ruling states:
As we have discussed, we understand the United States Supreme Court in its most recent rulings to have clarified that public health orders placing capacity limitations on indoor public gatherings that have the effect of restricting indoor worship services are unlikely to survive strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause where the same capacity limitations do not apply to all types of indoor secular activity, notwithstanding that secular indoor gatherings are also restricted. (South Bay II, supra, 592 U.S. _ [141 S. Ct. 716]; Tandon, supra, 593 U.S. at p. [141 S. Ct. 1294].)”
Dr. Gold, Founder of AFLDS is a friend of Pastor McClure. Dr. Gold spoke at Pastor McClure’s church multiple times to thousands of patriots throughout this pandemic. We at AFLDS are proud of Pastor McClure for standing his ground and we applaud his victory.
Robert Tyler, President of Advocates for Faith & Freedom commented, “This is a significant victory for churches and pastors across this country. We are honored to represent pastors and churches who are willing to take the heat in defense of liberty because it benefits everyone.”
Pastor Mike McClure also responded to the victory, “I thank God that our actions have been justified by the Court of Appeals. We are here to help the hurting, save the lost, and worship God without governmental intrusion.”
Calvary Chapel is represented by Advocates for Faith and Freedom; we encourage you to read their full Press Release here.
The Court of Appeals’ opinion can be read in its entirety here.