(The Center Square) – A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked the Biden administration's ban on new exports of liquified natural gas exports to non-free trade agreement countries.

Judge James Cain Jr. of the Western District of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Department of Energy's partial LNG export ban after more than a dozen states sued, arguing the ban was illegal.

“It appears that the DOE's decision to halt the permit approval process for entities to export LNG to non-FTA countries is completely without reason or logic and is perhaps the epiphany of ideocracy,” Cain wrote in his ruling.

The ban was put in place, according to the Biden administration, because the exports “no longer adequately account for considerations like potential energy cost increases for American consumers and manufacturers beyond current authorizations or the latest assessment of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions.”

After the Department of Energy announced the ban in January, 16 states filed suit, including Louisiana.

“This is great news for Louisiana, our 16 state partners in this fight, and the entire country,” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement following the judge's decision. “As Judge Cain mentioned in his ruling, there is roughly $61 billion dollars of pending infrastructure at risk to our state from this illegal pause. LNG has an enormous and positive impact on Louisiana, supplying clean energy for the entire world, and providing good jobs here at home.”

Louisiana was joined by Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming in the lawsuit. 

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court declined to issue a ruling but unanimously vacated the judgments of and remanded a set of cases regarding social media moderation and algorithms back to federal appellate courts. The court also ordered lower courts to more closely examine the laws' application beyond curated feeds and suggested they explore how the laws could still apply to other features, such as direct messaging.

Florida and Texas both passed laws limiting social media content moderation and algorithmic sorting — which the court says was in response to a feeling “feeds [were] skewed against politically conservative voices” — and requiring notification detailing exactly why any posts are in violation of content moderation rules. District courts, following suits by trade association NetChoice, issued injunctions against both, with the Eleventh Circuit Court upholding the injunction against Florida's law, and the Fifth Circuit Court — which ruled social media companies are “common carriers” like mobile phone service providers that can't discriminate — reversing the injunction against Texas' law.

By remanding and vacating both the appellate courts' decisions, the Supreme Court did not definitely rule on the matter, but suggested, especially with regard to the Fifth Circuit, how the lower courts should move forward this time around. 

“This Court has many times held, in many contexts, that it is no job for government to decide what counts as the right balance of private expression—to “un-bias” what it thinks biased, rather than to leave such judgments to speakers and their audiences. That principle works for social-media platforms as it does for others,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan in the court's opinion. “Contrary to what the Fifth Circuit thought, the current record indicates that the Texas law does regulate speech.” 

The court then went on to say the Fifth and Eleventh Circuit Courts should more broadly consider First Amendment implications of Florida and Texas rules in social media beyond the content feeds, such as in direct messaging or determining the order in which online reviews are shown to consumers. 

“Curating a feed and transmitting direct messages, one might think, involve different levels of editorial choice, so that the one creates an expressive product and the other does not,” wrote Kagan. “If so, regulation of those diverse activities could well fall on different sides of the constitutional line.” 

This means lower courts could expand consumers' speech protections to less-curated products such as direct messages, but free speech legal experts say it's unlikely.

“Having attended the oral argument in the NetChoice cases, I think the court was more really just trying to explore how regulations would apply to different functions,” said Robert Corn-Revere, chief counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. “Parsing out direct messages where the platform doesn't have any involvement in the message from others could be used as part of that argument, but I don't think you can reach that conclusion just from that one off-hand remark from Kagan.”

The cases now go back to the Fifth and Eleventh District Courts for new rulings under the Supreme Court's instructions.

(The Center Square) – U.S. Rep. Chip Roy R-Texas, filed a resolution Friday calling for the 25th Amendment of the Constitution to be invoked to remove President Joe Biden from office after his performance at the presidential debate on Thursday night. Biden appeared to have mental and physical difficulties, prompting widespread speculation and criticism in the media and among Democrats.

The resolution calls on Vice President Kamala Harris “to convene and mobilize the principal officers of the executive departments of the Cabinet to activate Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to declare President Joseph Biden incapable of executing the duties of his office and to immediately exercise powers as Acting President.” It also states Biden “has repeatedly and publicly demonstrated his inability to discharge the powers and duties of the presidency, including, among others, the powers and duties of the Commander-In-Chief.”

In a radio interview, Roy made similar arguments to those of Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, saying he doesn't know who would replace Biden as the Democratic nominee ahead on Novembers election. Cruz says it would be former First Lady Michelle Obama.

Roy said, “Democrats have now known this for a long time,” referring to Biden's mental and physical health. “They've been guilty of trying to hide it from the American people. They've been using him [Biden] as a puppet as a Manchurian candidate to drive their radical agenda. They've done that on purpose … now they saw the gig is up, that Trump could win, they were hoping they could keep the Manchurian candidate in place, they panicked. It was a controlled panic, let's have an early debate, we'll see how he performed. He didn't perform. Now they have what they need to try to push him aside and end-run [Vice President] Kamala [Harris].”

Regardless of the Democrats' problems, Roy said, “we have a constitutional duty to protect the Constitution. He's incapable. We should force Democrats to own it and make a choice. Do you agree, do you believe he's competent? Let's make them choose.”

Congress proposed the 25th Amendment in 1965 after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. All 50 states ratified it in 1967. It establishes procedures for replacing the president or vice president under certain circumstances. The first time it was invoked was in 1973 after Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned, according to the Congressional Research Service. It was again used in 1974 after President Richard Nixon resigned and when Vice President Gerald Ford, who became president, nominated Nelson Rockefeller as Vice President. It has not been used since.

Calls to invoke the 25th Amendment were made in February by multiple members of Congress after Special Counsel Robert Hur's report cited examples of Biden's mental lapses, describing him as an “elderly man with poor memory,” The Center Square reported.

Before that, and for three years, former White House physician for presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump, U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, repeatedly questioned Biden's mental and physical health and called for him to be removed under the 25th Amendment, The Center Square reported.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, agreed with Roy's resolution, saying, “If the need to invoke the 25th Amendment wasn't made abundantly clear last night, it never will be. This is dire. And exactly the kind of situation for which the 25th Amendment was written.”

U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Florida, said if the Hur tapes were released, Biden's cabinet would vote to remove him from office. She told Fox Business, “If we are able to hear that he is incompetent on those tapes,” she said the cabinet “would have to” vote to remove him. “I say that based on last night's performance and the outcry from Democrats from various news outlets from the American people … calling for a new candidate or for him to step aside.”

At a campaign event in North Carolina on Friday, Biden said he wasn't backing down. “I don't walk as easy as I used to. I don't speak as smoothly as I used to… I know how to tell the truth. I know right from wrong. I know how to do this job…I know like millions of Americans know; when you get knocked down you get back up.”

After his campaign blamed his poor performance on a cold, co-host of CBS Mornings Gayle King said, “When you have a cold there's many things you can take for it. We didn't know he had a cold until he stood up. A cold doesn't force you to lose your train of thought. A cold doesn't force you to just throw things out randomly that to many people made no sense.

“So how long do we continue to act like that we didn't see what we just saw last night? I thought for many people, the word I keep hearing was, ‘it was very painful to watch.'”