Which is how, for instance, you get the D.C. Court of Appeals suggesting that you could investigate a newspaper for consumer fraud for not living up to its standards (!) in order to greenlight an investigation of Meta for not taking down enough vaccine misinformation law.justia.com/cases/distri...

A thing I don’t understand is why DOJ chose to take (to be reductive) such a speech-protective position in Moody only to turn around and take positions here that even the justices in the minority in Moody seem to think are too aggressive

Probably the boring answer is “sometimes but not as often”

True, though they’ve likewise been sharpening tools for non-federal/non-agency contexts, like the post-Cedar Point Takings Clause. So I think the question remains whether speech claims will still do distinctive work for that agenda as they get bolder about directly centering “economic liberty”

Carolene Products through a mirror, basically

I think we’ll see/are seeing that “First Amendment Lochnerism” is no longer a gambit that matters to the right because they have the votes for ordinary Lochnerism. If anything, the synthesis the Court’s right wing was pushing last term was “no regulatory power *except* over ideological enemies”