The Kennedy et al. v. Biden et al. lawsuit on Tuesday heard oral arguments presented by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Children’s Health Defense (CHD), who are suing the Biden-Harris administration, alleging its collusion with Big Tech to censor what should be protected online speech.

Listen to the oral arguments here.

Anthony Fauci is named as a defendant along with Biden, and they are accused of carrying out a systematic and concerted campaign in order to “compel the nation’s three largest social media companies to censor constitutionally protected speech,” the filing states. The companies in question are Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.

The legal battle is now taking place in the 5th Circuit US Court of Appeals, which is set to decide whether the case has standing to proceed – that is, whether the actions they are suing over have resulted in direct and concrete injuries that a court can redress.

Previously, as CHD General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg recalled, a lower court ruled that Kennedy and CHD – who brought the suit along with another plaintiff, Connie Sampognaro – had legal standing (while Sampognaro did not), and the court of appeals will now accept or reject that opinion.

Another consideration before the judges is the injunction by the Louisiana court, where the case was filed in the spring of last year, and whether to uphold it. If the 5th Circuit goes with the lower court’s position, the Biden-Harris White House’s “coordination” with social platforms will have to be put on hold pending the outcome of these proceedings.

Reports about the way Kennedy v. Biden is unfolding make a note of the Supreme Court’s decision in Murthy v. Missouri (originally Missouri et al. v. Biden et al.), which found the plaintiffs had no standing. Even though this case and Kennedy v. Biden shared discovery and other processes, “they continued to be heard and ruled on separately,” CHD remarks.

And, Rosenberg believes that the latter lawsuit has “clearly demonstrated standing” and has a much better chance of being allowed to proceed.

During the hearing on Tuesday, the Department of Justice argued that Murthy v. Missouri “foreclosed the plaintiffs’ theories on why the plaintiffs have standing.”

However, the plaintiffs’ attorney Jed Rubenfeld argued that Kennedy and others can prove past, and ongoing injury – including instances of deplatforming.