Senator Mark Warner recently filed an amicus brief in support of federal government officials in a Supreme Court case concerning an injunction issued by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals forbidding them from engaging with social media platforms concerning foreign malign influence efforts targeting their users. Drawing from his experience as Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator explains that the injunction would hinder (and has already begun to hider) the government’s ability to combat foreign influence threats, such as efforts to influence elections.
In the brief, Senator Warner stated that he considers it a national security imperative for government officials to engage with social media platforms about foreign malign influence targeting their users, particularly in the context of election influence and efforts to stoke social and racial tensions in the United States. He emphasized the importance of cooperation between the public and private sectors in combating foreign malign influence operations and believes that the injunction will prevent or limit this core government function of sharing information with social media platforms concerning these national security threats. Senator Warner also highlighted the fact that social media platforms are the primary vector for modern, sophisticated influence campaigns.
The brief explains that foreign malign influence campaigns seek to destabilize American society, and the best way to combat them is through cooperation between the public and private sectors. Senator Warner discusses how threat-sharing is crucial in this fight. But, the brief explains, the Fifth Circuit’s injunction will prevent and/or chill communications between government officials and social media platforms, thus imperiling our national security.
Senator Warner is represented in this matter by Tycko & Zavareei attorneys Hassan Zavareei, Glenn Chappell, Spencer Hughes, Gemma Seidita, and Schuyler Standley.
The case is Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General, et al. v. State of Missouri, et al., Case No.: 23-411 in the Supreme Court of the United States.