Legal analysts on both CNN and MSNBC attacked a federal judge who found that the White House likely violated the First Amendment by claiming that his decision was an "activist judicial opinion" that "goes too far."

On Independence Day, U.S. District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty ordered an injunction to prevent the Biden Administration from communicating with tech companies to discuss matters about social media censorship. The injunction noted that the White House also likely violated the free speech clause of the Constitution in the past during the pandemic. 

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth,’" Doughty wrote.

While many celebrated the injunction as a win for the First Amendment, some members of the media were critical of both the decision and the judge making it.

JUDGE PRAISED FOR ‘STUNNING’ JULY 4 REBUKE OF BIDEN ADMIN ON BIG TECH CENSORSHIP: ‘FINALLY’ 

CNN legal analyst Ellie Honig described the injunction as "dramatic" and part of a "conservative political ideology."

"Yes, it’s a dramatic decision by this judge, if you read through it. He’s citing to literature and George Washington, and Ben Franklin. Here’s what really is astonishing to me. This is a conservative ideology that clearly comes through in this decision. It’s a conservative political ideology. Right?" Honig said. "We saw some of the quotes questioning vaccines, questioning masks; conservative talking points. But the ruling itself is the opposite of judicial conservativism. This is one of the most aggressive, far-reaching rulings you’ll ever see." 

He added, "This is a judge trying to micro-manage the day-to-day regular activities of the entire executive branch. I don’t know that it’s actually policeable by the judge. But it’s really an astonishing — I don’t mean this necessarily as a criticism. This is a very activist judicial opinion."

On MSNBC, Tulane University Professor Walter Isaacson similarly criticized Doughty, stating, "I think Judge Doughty’s decision goes too far."

Though Isaacson acknowledged evidence of collusion between social media companies and the White House on censorship, he maintained that the government "has to have the right" to push back on "dangerous" ideas.

"I think this is a little bit of a corrective but I clearly feel that in the end the decision will be refined somewhat, because government has to have the right to have its own free speech to push back when they see things on social media they think are dangerous," Isaacson said.

EX-BIDEN AIDE JEN PSAKI HIT FOR COERCING TECH COMPANIES TO CENSOR CONSERVATIVES BY FEDERAL JUDGE

The New York Times was also blasted on social media for its framing of the injunction as a ruling that would "curtail efforts" to fight disinformation and "misleading narratives."

"Breaking News: A judge limited Biden administration officials from contacting social media sites, a ruling that could curtail efforts to fight disinformation," a New York Times tweet read.

The article read, "A federal judge in Louisiana on Tuesday restricted the Biden administration from communicating with social media platforms about broad swaths of content online, a ruling that could curtail efforts to combat false and misleading narratives about the coronavirus pandemic and other issues."

The injunction followed recent lawsuits from Louisiana and Missouri that alleged the White House "significantly encourage[d]" tech companies to suppress certain opinions regarding the pandemic and vaccines. Doughty also noted that the censorship in the cases "almost exclusively targeted conservative speech."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history," the injunction read. "In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech."