The U.S. Supreme Court issued several major decisions over the course of 2024. 

Its rulings include those that have pushed back on the Biden administration's attempted change of Title IX protections for transgender students, reversed a 40-year precedent that had supported what conservatives have condemned as the administrative state in Washington, and considered the constitutionality of Republican-controlled state efforts to curtail what they define as liberal Silicon Valley biases online. 

The high court also ruled on presidential immunity at a consequential time for current President-elect Trump during the 2024 election – and sided with a Jan. 6 defendant who fought a federal obstruction charge. 

Here are the top cases considered by the justices over the past year. 

The Supreme Court on Aug. 16, 2024, kept preliminary injunctions preventing the Biden-Harris administration from implementing a new rule that widened the definition of sex discrimination under Title IX to include sexual orientation and gender identity, while litigation over the rule continues.

After the Fifth and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeal denied the administration's request to put a stay on the injunctions, the Department of Education turned to the Supreme Court, arguing that some parts of the rule should be able to take effect. The Supreme Court rejected their request.

"Importantly, all Members of the Court today accept that the plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief as to three provisions of the rule, including the central provision that newly defines sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity," the court's unsigned opinion said, concluding that the Biden administration had not "adequately identified which particular provisions, if any, are sufficiently independent of the enjoined definitional provision and thus might be able to remain in effect."

In April, the Department of Education issued the new rule implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, arguing that expanding the definition of discrimination to include "sexual orientation and gender identity" would protect LGBTQ students. Louisiana led several states in suing the DOE, contending the new rule "violates students' and employees' rights to bodily privacy and safety." 

Title IX implemented the long-standing athletics regulation allowing sex-separate teams decades ago, and Republicans contended Biden’s new rule would have significant implications on women- and girls-only spaces and possibly legally back biological males playing in women’s sports. Separate court injunctions blocked the rule from taking effect in 26 states. 

LIBERAL SUPREME COURT JUSTICE MAKES ‘CRINGE’ CAMEO PERFORMANCE ON BROADWAY

"I’m grateful that the Supreme Court agreed not to block our injunction against this radical rewrite of Title IX," Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement at the time. "Other than the 19th Amendment guaranteeing our right to vote, Title IX has been the most successful law in history at ensuring equal opportunity for women in education at all levels and in collegiate athletics. This fight isn’t over, but I’ll keep fighting to block this radical agenda that eviscerates Title IX." 

The Supreme Court on July 1, 2024, kept on hold efforts by Texas and Florida to limit how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate content in a ruling that strongly defended the platforms’ free speech rights.

Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan said the platforms, like newspapers, deserve protection from governments’ intrusion in determining what to include or exclude from their space. "The principle does not change because the curated compilation has gone from the physical to the virtual world," Kagan wrote in an opinion signed by five justices. All nine justices agreed on the overall outcome.

The justices returned the cases to lower courts for further review in broad challenges from trade associations for the companies.

While the details vary, both laws aimed to address long-standing conservative complaints that the social media companies were liberal-leaning and censored users based on their viewpoints, especially on the political right. 

The Florida and Texas laws were signed by Republican governors in the months following decisions by Facebook and Twitter (now X) to cut then-President Trump off over his posts related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Trade associations representing the companies sued in federal court, claiming that the laws violated the platforms’ speech rights. One federal appeals court struck down Florida’s statute while another upheld the Texas law, but both were on hold pending the outcome at the Supreme Court.

In a statement made when he signed the Florida measure into law, Gov. Ron DeSantis said it would be "protection against the Silicon Valley elites."

When Gov. Greg Abbott signed the Texas law, he said it was needed to protect free speech in what he termed the new public square. Social media platforms "are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely – but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas," Abbott said. "That is wrong, and we will not allow it in Texas."

NetChoice LLC has sued Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. 

"The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded, because neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms. NetChoice's decision to litigate these cases as facial challenges comes at a cost," the court wrote. "The Court has made facial challenges hard to win. In the First Amendment context, a plaintiff must show that 'a substantial number of [the law's] applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.' So far in these cases, no one has paid much attention to that issue." 

The court said its analysis and arguments "focused mainly on how the laws applied to the content-moderation practices that giant social-media platforms use on their best-known services to filter, alter or label their users' posts, i.e., on how the laws applied to the likes of Facebook's News Feed and YouTube's homepage," but the justices said they "did not address the full range of activities the laws cover, and measure the constitutional against the unconstitutional applications."

The Supreme Court on July 1, 2024, ruled that former presidents have substantial protection from prosecution, handing a major victory to Donald Trump, the former president who at the time was the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and is now president-elect.

Trump had moved to dismiss his indictment in a 2020 election interference case based on presidential immunity. 

The court did not dismiss the case, but the ruling did ensure the 45th president would not face trial in the case before the November 2024 election. 

In a 6-3 decision, the court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply the ruling to whether or not Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

"The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive." 

Trump, having won the 2024 presidential election, will take office Jan. 20, 2025.

SCOTUS HEARS ARGUMENTS IN CASE THAT COULD RESHAPE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court on June 28, 2024, overruled the 1984 landmark decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. 

Known as Chevron deference, the 40-year-old decision instructed lower courts to defer to federal agencies when laws passed by Congress were too ambiguous. It had been the basis for upholding thousands of regulations by dozens of federal agencies, but has long been a target of conservatives and business groups who argue that it grants too much power to the executive branch, or what some critics call the administrative state.

Roberts, writing for the court, said federal judges must now "exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority."

The ruling does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron doctrine, Roberts wrote. 

The reversal makes it so executive branch agencies will likely have more difficulty regulating the environment, public health, workplace safety and other issues. 

The case came about when Atlantic herring fishermen sued over federal rules requiring them to pay for independent observers to monitor their catch. The fishermen argued that the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act did not authorize officials to create industry-funded monitoring requirements and that the National Marine Fisheries Service failed to follow proper rulemaking procedures.

In two related cases, the fishermen asked the court to overturn the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine, which stems from a unanimous Supreme Court case involving the energy giant in a dispute over the Clean Air Act. In that case, the court upheld an action by the Environmental Protection Agency under President Ronald Reagan.

In the decades following the ruling, Chevron has been a bedrock of modern administrative law, requiring judges to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of congressional statutes.

The current Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has been increasingly skeptical of the powers of federal agencies. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch have questioned the Chevron decision. Ironically, it was Gorsuch’s mother, former EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch, who made the decision that the Supreme Court upheld in 1984.

The Biden administration argued that overturning Chevron would be destabilizing and could bring a "convulsive shock" to the nation’s legal system.

The Supreme Court on June 28, 2024, ruled in favor of a participant in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot who challenged his conviction for a federal obstruction crime.

The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Joseph Fischer – a former police officer and one of more than 300 people charged by the Justice Department with "obstruction of an official proceeding" in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. His lawyers argued that the federal statute should not apply, and that it had only ever been applied to evidence-tampering cases. 

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held to a narrower interpretation of a federal statute that imposes criminal liability on anyone who corruptly "alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding." 

The ruling reversed a lower court decision, which the justices said swept too broadly into areas like peaceful but disruptive conduct, and returned the case to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The Justice Department argued that Fischer’s actions were a "deliberate attempt" to stop a joint session of Congress directly from certifying the 2020 election, thus qualifying their use of the statute that criminalizes behavior that "otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do" and carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.

However, Roberts said the government stretched the law too far.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government – the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. I am disappointed by today’s decision, which limits an important federal statute that the Department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement reacting to the ruling. 

"The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision," he said.

Fox News’ Chris Pandolfo, Bill Mears, Shannon Bream, Brooke Singman, Brianna Herlihy and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

A State Department agency – which has been chided by conservatives for its alleged blacklisting of Americans and news outlets – is set to be refunded in the continuing resolution (CR) bill currently being hammered out among lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

The Global Engagement Center has been included in page 139 of the CR. Although it doesn’t specify its budget allocation, a previous Inspector General report shows the agency’s FY 2020 budget totaled $74.26 million, of which $60 million was appropriated by Congress. 

The provision in the CR can be found under "Foreign Affairs Section 301. Global Engagement Center Extension," and comes despite the State Department saying in response to a lawsuit that it intended to shut down the agency by next week.

OBAMA-ERA INTERAGENCY ORGANIZATION ‘BLACKLISTED’ AMERICANS IN ATTEMPT TO CURB ‘FOREIGN DISINFORMATION’: REPORT

The GEC, according to reporter Matt Taibbi, "funded a secret list of subcontractors and helped pioneer and insidious—and idiotic—new form of blacklisting" during the pandemic. 

Taibbi wrote last year when exposing the Twitter Files that the GEC "flagged accounts as ‘Russian personas and proxies’ based on criteria like, ‘Describing the Coronavirus as an engineered bioweapon,’ blaming ‘research conducted at the Wuhan institute,’ and ‘attributing the appearance of the virus to the CIA.’" 

"State also flagged accounts that retweeted news that Twitter banned the popular U.S. website ZeroHedge, claiming it 'led to another flurry of disinformation narratives.'" ZeroHedge had made reports speculating that the virus had a lab origin.

Elon Musk previously described the GEC as being the "worst offender in US government censorship & media manipulation." 

"They are a threat to our democracy," Musk wrote in a subsequent tweet. 

The GEC is part of the State Department but also partners with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Special Operations Command and the Department of Homeland Security. The GEC also funds the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab).

Taibbi offered various instances in which the DFRLab and the GEC sent Twitter a list of accounts they believed were engaged in "state-backed coordinated manipulation." However, a quick glance from Twitter employees determined that the list was shoddy and included the accounts of multiple American citizens with seemingly no connection to the foreign entity in question.

STATE DEPARTMENT FUNDS ‘DISINFORMATION’ INDEX TARGETING NON-LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE NEWS OUTLETS: REPORT

DFRLab Director Graham Brookie previously denied the claim that they use tax money to track Americans, saying its GEC grants have "an exclusively international focus."

A 2024 report from the Republican-led House Small Business Committee criticized the GEC for awarding grants to organizations whose work includes tracking domestic as well as foreign misinformation and rating the credibility of U.S.-based publishers, according to the Washington Post. 

The State Department, in response to a lawsuit, said it intended to shut down the agency on Dec. 23. But the CR provision means, if passed, it will continue to operate.

The lawsuit was brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Daily Wire and the Federalist, who sued the State Department, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and other government officials earlier this month for "engaging in a conspiracy to censor, deplatform and demonetize American media outlets disfavored by the federal government."

The lawsuit stated that the GEC was used as a tool for the defendants to carry out its censorship. 

"Congress authorized the creation of the Global Engagement Center expressly to counter foreign propaganda and misinformation," the Texas Attorney General’s Office said in a press release. "Instead, the agency weaponized this authority to violate the First Amendment and suppress Americans’ constitutionally-protected speech. 

The complaint describes the State Department’s project as "one of the most egregious government operations to censor the American press in the history of the nation.’"

The lawsuit argued that The Daily Wire, The Federalist, and other conservative news organizations were branded "unreliable" or "risky" by the agency, "starving them of advertising revenue and reducing the circulation of their reporting and speech—all as a direct result of [the State Department’s] unlawful censorship scheme."

Meanwhile, America First Legal, headed up by Stephen Miller, President-elect Trump’s pick for deputy chief of staff for policy, revealed that the GEC used taxpayer dollars to create a video game called "Cat Park" to "Inoculate Youth Against Disinformation" abroad. 

The game "inoculates players … by showing how sensational headlines, memes, and manipulated media can be used to advance conspiracy theories and incite real-world violence," according to a memo obtained by America First Legal. 

Mike Benz, the executive director at the Foundation For Freedom Online, said the game was "anti-populist" and pushed certain political beliefs instead of protecting Americans from foreign disinformation, per the Tennessee Star.

A State Department spokesperson said the agency does not comment on pending legislation when asked for comment by Fox News Digital.

Fox News Digital reached out to the GEC for comment on its potential refunding but did not immediately receive a response. 

Fox News Nikolas Lanum and Louis Casiano contributed to this report. 

A satanic "nativity" display involving an occult statue erected on Concord city property near the New Hampshire State Capitol was destroyed shortly after several vandalism incidents last week. Now, Democratic state Rep. Ellen Read is saying that the temple "probably should" get to erect a new display in its place.

"I think they probably should, because I think the vandalism and the hatefulness shouldn’t go without a response. But it’s up to them," Read said, the Catholic News Agency reported.

Read told the outlet she came up with the idea to suggest that The Satanic Temple (TST) put up the Christmas display, which was a statue of Baphomet – despite significant pushback from local officials – arguing that a Catholic groups' Nativity scene of Jesus should not be the only decoration there. She also said she is a member of TST but has not participated in any of its meetings or events. 

‘SATANIC TEMPLE’ MEMBERS WANT TO VOLUNTEER IN FLORIDA SCHOOLS, BUT GOVERNOR'S OFFICE SAYS IT WON'T HAPPEN

According to its website, TST's mission "Is To Encourage Benevolence And Empathy, Reject Tyrannical Authority, Advocate Practical Common Sense, Oppose Injustice, And Undertake Noble Pursuits."

"We have publicly confronted hate groups, fought for the abolition of corporal punishment in public schools, applied for equal representation when religious installations are placed on public property, provided religious exemption and legal protection against laws that unscientifically restrict people's reproductive autonomy, exposed harmful pseudo-scientific practitioners in mental health care, organized clubs alongside other religious after-school clubs in schools besieged by proselytizing organizations, and engaged in other advocacy in accordance with our tenets," the website states. 

Avoiding a legal dispute over the First Amendment, the Concord City Council approved the organization's permit to show the display, despite the mayor saying earlier this week he wished the city had not approved it. 

NEW YORK SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLOWS STUDENT TO FORM BIBLE CLUB AFTER PREVIOUSLY DENYING PERMISSION

"I opposed the permit because I believe the request was made not in the interest of promoting religious equity but in order to drive an anti-religious political agenda, and because I do not respond well to legal extortion, the threat of litigation," Concord Mayor Byron Champlin said during the council's meeting last Monday. "Some on social media have celebrated the Satanic Temple’s display as a victory for religious pluralism and a reflection of our growing diversity as a community. I disagree with this. This is about an out-of-state organization cynically promoting its national agenda at the expense of the Concord community."

Meanwhile, the city put out a statement saying that due to the First Amendment and the potential for a lawsuit, the city was forced to choose between banning all holiday displays or allowing TST's statue.

"After reviewing its legal options, the City ultimately decided to continue the policy of allowing unattended displays at City Plaza during this holiday season and to allow the statue," the city said in a statement. "It is anticipated that the City Council will review next year whether permits for unattended holiday displays should be allowed at City Plaza."

LAWSUIT AGAINST NY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT TO MOVE FORWARD AFTER PARENTS SAY CHILDREN WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST

Read rebuked the mayor in an interview with the Catholic news outlet this week, saying, "I think it’s the narrow-mindedness of the mayor, who can’t seem to wrap his head around that this represents a large percentage of the community and its beliefs."

In a video posted to Facebook, two TST representatives unveiled the statue Monday. One spokesperson recalled the group's core tenets, before chanting, "Hail Satan!" and showcasing the statue. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Concord Deputy Police Chief John Thomas told a local news outlet that the investigation into who vandalized TST's property is ongoing. 

TST has erected several holiday displays near city or state properties, often alongside traditional Christian exhibits, in recent years. In 2022, the Illinois chapter of TST installed a holiday display in the state Capitol rotunda, which featured a crocheted serpent atop a book and a pile of apples. In December 2023, the Iowa TST chapter set up a Baphomet statue at the state Capitol, which was also vandalized shortly after its placement. 

The popular American gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson says it is still being kept in the dark after its Facebook account was suddenly suspended last month.

Though the account has since been reinstated, a representative for the company told Fox News Digital that "despite multiple attempts to reach Facebook to discuss the matter, to date we have not had direct communications with any of their staff members."

The gun company, which is headquartered in Maryville, Tennessee, said staff suddenly received a notification from Facebook on Nov. 22 stating that their official Smith & Wesson account had been "suspended indefinitely."

"No warnings of a page suspension were previously communicated by Facebook," said the representative.

BIDEN-HARRIS POLICIES MAY BE BEHIND SURGE IN REPUBLICAN WOMEN OWNING GUNS, CONCEALED CARRY ADVOCATE SAYS

The representative said Facebook referenced five posts dating back to December 2023 that they "suggest did not follow their community guidelines."

"The posts in question included consumer promotional campaigns, charitable auctions, and product release announcements," the Smith & Wesson representative explained. "While Facebook’s policies are ever-changing, which creates a burden for users to comply with, we do not believe this content violated any of Facebook’s policies or community guidelines, and similar posts have been published in the past without issue."  

Facebook’s commerce policy prohibits the promotion of buying, selling and trading of weapons, ammunition and explosives. However, according to Facebook’s parent company Meta’s website, there is an exception for legitimate brick-and-mortar and online retailers, though their content is still restricted for minors.

‘SMOKING-GUN DOCUMENTS’ PROVE FACEBOOK CENSORED AMERICANS ON BEHALF OF WHITE HOUSE, JIM JORDAN SAYS

According to the representative, the page was reinstated on Nov. 27 after the gun manufacturer made a public statement about the incident on X.

In the post, which has 3.1 million views, Smith & Wesson criticized Facebook and thanked Elon Musk and X for supporting free speech amid what it called ongoing attacks against the First and Second Amendments. The company encouraged its 1.6 million Facebook followers and fans to "seek out platforms" that represent the "shared values" of free speech and the right to bear arms.

Despite the page eventually being reinstated, the representative told Fox News Digital that the company has still had no contact with Meta and "no rationale was given for the reinstatement beyond a comment on social media from a Facebook representative stating that the suspension had been ‘in error.’"

That same Meta staffer, Andy Stone, also directed Fox News Digital to the X post positing that Smith & Wesson’s suspension was an accident. In the post, Stone said "the page was suspended in error and we’ve now restored it. We apologize that this happened."

TRUMP FCC PICK SAYS BRINGING ‘CENSORSHIP CARTEL’ TO HEEL WILL BE A ‘TOP’ PRIORITY: ‘IT’S GOT TO END'

Through it all, the Smith & Wesson representative said the manufacturer is "grateful to Elon Musk for having created a public square platform that respects the right for Americans to voice their opinions, ALL opinions, and not just those that coincide with one agenda or another – especially as it relates to our constitutional rights guaranteed under the 1st and 2nd Amendments."

The spokesperson said that since their account was suspended, they have become aware that many other social media users have been similarly silenced and de-platformed.

"While we were encouraged by the reinstatement of our account, we were similarly disappointed by the number of other users reacting to our statement on X that commented that they have had very similar experiences with their accounts being de-platformed without warning," said the representative. "While we obviously do not know the details of those instances, we encourage Meta to continue working towards a more inclusive platform which allows the freedom for respectful dialogue from all viewpoints, which is a hallmark of American society."

Founded in Norwich, Connecticut, in 1852, Smith & Wesson is one of the most recognized gun brands in America and reported $535.8 million in sales in the 2024 fiscal year.

After its Facebook account was suspended, the popular American gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson thanked Elon Musk and X for supporting free speech amid what it called ongoing attacks against the First and Second Amendments.

Andy Stone, a representative for Facebook's parent company, Meta, told Fox News Digital that the account had been suspended in error and that it has since been restored. 

In a Friday post on X, however, Smith & Wesson emphasized the importance of Musk's stance on free speech, criticizing Meta for suspending their account after the platform flagged several of its posts for promoting the sale of weapons.

Founded in 1852 in Norwich, Connecticut, today Smith & Wesson is based in Maryville, Tennessee, and is one of the most recognized gun brands in America, reporting $535.8 million in sales in the 2024 fiscal year.

Smith & Wesson said that "despite our extensive efforts and resources spent on trying to adhere to Facebook’s ever-changing community guidelines on firearms, our account was suspended indefinitely on Friday, November 22nd, 15 years after its original creation."

ELON MUSK PLEDGES SUPPORT FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT: ‘TYRANTS’ DISARM THE PEOPLE

The manufacturer shared a screenshot of the suspension notice it had received from Facebook in which the platform said several posts dated Nov. 22, 13 and July 18 violated the rules on promoting weapons.

Facebook’s commerce policy prohibits the promotion of buying, selling and trading of weapons, ammunition and explosives. However, according to Facebook’s parent company Meta’s website, there is an exception for legitimate brick-and-mortar and online retailers, though their content is still restricted for minors.

ZUCKERBERG SAYS ‘ESTABLISHMENT’ ASKED FACEBOOK TO CENSOR COVID MISINFO THAT ENDED UP TRUE: ‘UNDERMINES TRUST’ 

Although its account has since been reinstated, Smith & Wesson encouraged its 1.6 million Facebook followers and fans to "seek out platforms" that represent the "shared values" of free speech and the right to bear arms.

"In an era where free speech and the right to bear arms are under constant attack, we want to thank Elon Musk and X for supporting free speech and our constitutional rights guaranteed by the 1st and 2nd Amendments," said Smith & Wesson.

Musk responded to the post by saying, "[we] believe in the Constitution." He also pointed out that X had resumed allowing users to post the gun emoji after it was replaced by a water gun by Twitter in 2018. 

The National Association for Gun Rights, which is a Second Amendment advocacy group with over 4.5 million activists, also chimed in, saying, "Thank you for giving us a place to shelter in this storm of Constitution-hating companies."

In a separate post, the association called X one of the last holdouts for free speech and gun rights.

"It is becoming clear that X is one of the last major bastions of 2A and Firearms content on social media," said the group, adding, "the noose is slowly tightening everywhere else, seeking to squeeze us out entirely."

This article was edited to reflect new information from Meta about the Smith & Wesson account being suspended in error.

U.S. Reps. James McGovern, D-Mass., and Thomas Massie, R-Ky., wrote a letter to President Biden calling on him to pardon WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to "send a clear message" that his administration will not target journalistic activity.

Assange, an Australian publisher, pleaded guilty in June and was sentenced to time served as part of a deal he reached with the U.S. Justice Department to end his imprisonment in London over charges for publishing classified U.S. military documents leaked to him by a source. Assange had spent years attempting to avoid extradition from the U.K. to the U.S.

"We write, first, to express our appreciation for your administration's decision last spring to facilitate a resolution of the criminal case against publisher Julian Assange and to withdraw the related extradition request that had been pending in the United Kingdom," the lawmakers wrote to Biden. "This brought an end to Mr. Assange's protracted detention and allowed him to reunite with his family and return to his home country of Australia."

Before his plea deal, Assange, 53, was facing 17 counts under the Espionage Act for allegedly receiving, possessing and communicating classified information to the public, as well as one charge alleging conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. The agreement helped him avoid the potential of spending up to 175 years in an American maximum security prison.

WIKILEAKS' JULIAN ASSANGE SAYS HE PLEADED 'GUILTY TO JOURNALISM' IN ORDER TO BE FREED

The charges were brought by the Trump administration's Justice Department over WikiLeaks' 2010 publication of cables leaked by U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, and the Biden administration had continued to pursue prosecution until the plea deal. The cables detailed alleged war crimes committed by the U.S. government in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, detention camp, as well as instances of the CIA engaging in torture and rendition.

WikiLeaks' "Collateral Murder" video showing the U.S. military gunning down civilians in Iraq, including two Reuters journalists, was also published 14 years ago.

The lawmakers told Biden, who is set to leave office in January, that they are "deeply concerned that the agreement that ended the case required Mr. Assange to plead guilty to felony charges under section 793 of the Espionage Act," highlighting that the decision to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act "set off alarms" among members of Congress, as well as advocates for freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

In 2013, the Obama administration decided not to indict Assange over WikiLeaks' 2010 publication of classified cables because it would have had to also indict journalists from major news outlets who published the same materials.

President Obama also commuted Manning’s 35-year sentence for violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses to seven years in January 2017, and Manning, who had been imprisoned since 2010, was released later that year.

"Put simply, there is a long-standing and well-grounded concern that section 793, which criminalizes the obtaining, retaining, or disclosing of sensitive information, could be used against journalists and news organizations engaged in their normal activities, particularly those who cover national security topics. This risk reportedly informed the Obama administration's decision not to prosecute Mr. Assange," McGovern and Massie wrote.

JULIAN ASSANGE SECURES FREEDOM FOLLOWING PLEA DEAL WITH US, SENTENCED TO TIME SERVED

Assange had been held at London's high-security Belmarsh Prison since being removed from the Ecuadorian Embassy on April 11, 2019, for breaching bail conditions. He had sought asylum at the embassy since 2012 to avoid being sent to Sweden over allegations he raped two women because Sweden would not provide assurances it would protect him from extradition to the U.S. The investigations into the sexual assault allegations were eventually dropped over lack of evidence.

He was the first journalist to be charged under the Espionage Act.

"The terms of Mr. Assange's plea agreement have now set a precedent that greatly deepens our concern," the letter reads. "A review of prosecutions under the Espionage Act makes clear that Mr. Assange's case is the first time the Act has been deployed against a publisher."

The congressmen said they share the view of Jodie Ginsberg, the chief executive of the Committee to Protect Journalists, who reacted to the plea agreement by saying: "While we welcome the end of his detention, the US’s pursuit of Assange has set a harmful legal precedent by opening the way for journalists to be tried under the Espionage Act if they receive classified material from whistleblowers."

"We therefore urge you to consider issuing a pardon for Mr. Assange," the lawmakers wrote. "A pardon would remove the precedent set by the plea and send a clear message that the U.S. government under your leadership will not target or investigate journalists and media outlets simply for doing their jobs."

Last year, as Assange was still in prison in London fighting extradition to the U.S., McGovern and Massie led a letter to Biden signed by a bipartisan group of congressional colleagues urging the president to drop the case against Assange.

Assange's brother, Gabriel Shipton, is returning to Washington, D.C., in January as part of a campaign calling on Biden to pardon the WikiLeaks founder before leaving office.

JULIAN ASSANGE, WIKILEAKS FOUNDER, REACHES PLEA DEAL TO AVOID PRISON IN US

Shipton and Assange's wife, Stella, have asked Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who before the plea deal had called for an end to Assange's prosecution and said he had raised the case with Biden, to urge the president to issue a pardon in his farewell phone call with the outgoing commander in chief.

As a condition of his plea, Assange was required to destroy classified information provided to WikiLeaks.

During his sentencing hearing in June in federal court in Saipan, the capital of the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. commonwealth in the Pacific, U.S. District Judge Ramona Manglona noted that the U.S. government admitted that there is no evidence that WikiLeaks' publications put anyone in harms way.

"The government has indicated there is no personal victim here. That tells me the dissemination of this information did not result in any known physical injury," the judge said at the time. "These two facts are very relevant. I would say if this was still unknown and closer to [2012] I would not be so inclined to accept this plea agreement before me. But it's the year 2024."

The conservative satire outlet the Babylon Bee is calling out X’s rival platform Bluesky for repeatedly censoring its posts and arbitrarily labeling them "intolerance."

Babylon Bee editor-in-chief Kyle Mann told Fox News Digital that Bluesky’s decision to censor their content is a "chilling reminder" of what the social media landscape would look like if Elon Musk had not bought Twitter.

The Babylon Bee was suspended from Twitter in 2022 for posting a satirical article calling Adm. Rachel Levine, a Biden administration Cabinet member and a transgender woman, the "man of the year."

Twitter flagged the post as violating its rules regarding "hateful conduct" and suspended the Babylon Bee’s account until they deleted their tweet, which the outlet refused to do. The Babylon Bee’s account remained suspended by Twitter until Musk reinstated it after he gained control.

JOE ROGAN ASKS TO TAKE RACHEL MADDOW'S JOB IF ELON MUSK BUYS MSNBC

Now, two years later, the Babylon Bee is facing a similar dilemma on Bluesky, which was created by Twitter’s co-founder Jack Dorsey and is widely seen as a direct competitor to X.

Bluesky has a similar layout to X but operates on an "authenticated transfer protocol" that creators say allows users more control over what content they access than platforms that operate on a single algorithm.

Bluesky’s website states that "our online experience doesn’t have to depend on billionaires unilaterally making decisions over what we see" and "on an open social network like Bluesky, you can shape your experience for yourself."

The platform has seen a significant increase in users in the last several weeks, with 8 million people, many of whom are former X users, joining since Election Day. There are currently 22 million users on Bluesky, which is still considerably lower than X’s user base of over 500 million.

‘PATHETIC’: TOP 10 MEDIA MELTDOWNS FOLLOWING TRUMP'S ELECTION WIN, FROM ON-AIR TEARS TO CLAIMS OF ‘MISOGYNY’ 

The Babylon Bee made its first post on Bluesky on Nov. 18. It posted the same Rachel Levine article that had gotten them suspended in 2022. The post was quickly flagged and hidden by Bluesky’s moderation service, which labeled it "intolerance." Users can still see the post by clicking past the intolerance label.

The satire site’s creators have now tried reposting the article four times, with each attempt having a similar result.

According to Bluesky’s community guidelines, the platform bans "gender identity-based harassment" and anything "promoting hate or extremist conduct that targets people or groups based on their race, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, disability, or sexual orientation."

Mann, however, said that "it's ironic that the platform championing tolerance and freedom from Musk's influence is itself so intolerant of differing views."

He explained that the outlet "thought it was only fitting to debut the Bee's account on Bluesky with the article that famously got us banned from Twitter" and that the result highlights the need for Musk’s prioritization of free speech on X.

"Bluesky's censorship policies are eerily reminiscent of the status quo on Twitter before Elon Musk took over," he said. "It's chilling to think about what freedom of speech might look like right now in the United States if Musk hadn't stepped up and freed us from the Twitter tyrants."