The Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit alleging that Biden administration officials unlawfully pressured social-media platforms to remove content flagged as disinformation, ruling that two GOP-led states and several individuals who posted content online didn't suffer harms that allowed them to sue. The 6-3 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett capped a wild ride for a case that was a product of the Covid-19 era and persistent claims that conservative viewpoints about lockdowns, vaccines, pandemic election rules, and other issues were being censored online.
The 2022 lawsuit, led by Republican state attorneys general in Missouri and Louisiana, had fared well in the lower courts, at one point resulting in an unprecedented injunction that blocked several government agencies and scores of officials from communicating with social-media companies about removing “content containing protected free speech” from their platforms. The high court said the plaintiffs, which included a handful of doctors, an antivaccine activist, and a far-right web publisher, failed at a first fundamental step for any lawsuit: showing that they had suffered specific injuries that judges are capable of redressing.
The lawsuit improperly asked the court “to conduct a review of the yearslong communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics,” Barrett wrote. “This Court’s standing doctrine prevents us from exercising such general legal oversight of the other branches of Government.” Barrett also noted that online platforms had their own incentives to moderate content and enforce policies aimed at removing false and misleading content, independent of their discussions with the government. None of the plaintiffs could show that any of their speech that was restricted online was a result of pressure government officials placed on social-media companies, she said.
The ruling crossed ideological lines. Two of Barrett’s fellow conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined her ruling, as did the court’s three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Three other conservatives dissented. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, said the government’s conduct was blatantly unconstitutional.
By deciding the challengers didn’t have legal standing, the court sidestepped potentially difficult questions about when outreach by government officials crosses the line from lawful persuasion to illegal coercion. However, the decision “makes it more likely that the government will be able to engage in dialogue with Big Tech around content moderation,” said Timothy Edgar, a former intelligence official who advised the Obama White House on cybersecurity. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the decision helps ensure the administration can continue its important work with technology companies to protect the safety and security of the American people, after years of extreme and unfounded Republican attacks on public officials who engaged in critical work to keep Americans safe.
Lawyers for Louisiana and Missouri argued the states had standing to sue to protect their citizens’ First Amendment interests in hearing unfettered opinions online. Social-media companies, which weren’t parties to the case, have long rejected claims of liberal bias. A trade group that advocates for them urged the court to set clear boundaries for the government and decree that digital services can’t be held liable for the actions of government officials.
The 2022 lawsuit, led by Republican state attorneys general in Missouri and Louisiana, had fared well in the lower courts, at one point resulting in an unprecedented injunction that blocked several government agencies and scores of officials from communicating with social-media companies about removing “content containing protected free speech” from their platforms. The high court said the plaintiffs, which included a handful of doctors, an antivaccine activist, and a far-right web publisher, failed at a first fundamental step for any lawsuit: showing that they had suffered specific injuries that judges are capable of redressing.
The lawsuit improperly asked the court “to conduct a review of the yearslong communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics,” Barrett wrote. “This Court’s standing doctrine prevents us from exercising such general legal oversight of the other branches of Government.” Barrett also noted that online platforms had their own incentives to moderate content and enforce policies aimed at removing false and misleading content, independent of their discussions with the government. None of the plaintiffs could show that any of their speech that was restricted online was a result of pressure government officials placed on social-media companies, she said.
The ruling crossed ideological lines. Two of Barrett’s fellow conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined her ruling, as did the court’s three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Three other conservatives dissented. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, said the government’s conduct was blatantly unconstitutional.
By deciding the challengers didn’t have legal standing, the court sidestepped potentially difficult questions about when outreach by government officials crosses the line from lawful persuasion to illegal coercion. However, the decision “makes it more likely that the government will be able to engage in dialogue with Big Tech around content moderation,” said Timothy Edgar, a former intelligence official who advised the Obama White House on cybersecurity. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the decision helps ensure the administration can continue its important work with technology companies to protect the safety and security of the American people, after years of extreme and unfounded Republican attacks on public officials who engaged in critical work to keep Americans safe.
Lawyers for Louisiana and Missouri argued the states had standing to sue to protect their citizens’ First Amendment interests in hearing unfettered opinions online. Social-media companies, which weren’t parties to the case, have long rejected claims of liberal bias. A trade group that advocates for them urged the court to set clear boundaries for the government and decree that digital services can’t be held liable for the actions of government officials.
