The current and former officials include Seth Bluestein, Kathy Boockvar, Edgardo Cortes, Lisa Deeley, Mark Earley, Neal Kelley, Trey Grayson, and DeForest B. Soaries, and are represented by the Brennan Center. 

The brief is here, and a summary of the argument is below. 

. . . Social media platforms rely on communicating with election officials to supply accurate information for the platforms’ voluntary public education efforts, to correct false and misleading content, and to identify threatening content that violates the platforms’ moderation policies. The integrity of American elections depends on those open lines of communication to ensure that platforms provide accurate information to the voting public.

The First Amendment permits private social media companies to decide what content to host on their platforms. In making those decisions, platforms are free to consult with government officials and, if they choose, to take those officials’ suggestions. Such communications by government officials—even emphatic ones—are an exercise of the government’s prerogative to voice its own views and are consistent with the First Amendment as long as the ultimate decision regarding content rests with the platforms themselves. The Fifth Circuit’s expansive state action test incorrectly classifies benign, non-coercive governmental communication as “entanglement” that renders platforms’ content moderation decisions to be attributable to the government itself. This Court should preserve its robust state action requirement and clarify that government officials responsible for protecting the integrity of American elections remain free to communicate with social media platforms, both regarding the platforms’ efforts to curate content and apply their content moderation policies, and to advocate for the government’s view on responsible moderation policies and practices.