Supreme Court Strikes Down States' Challenge to White House Coordination with Social Media Companies

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Biden administration in a lawsuit brought by state attorneys general who accused the government of working with social media giants to censor speech.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a blow to states seeking to challenge the Biden administration's alleged coordination with social media companies, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their case. The case, Murthy v. Missouri, revolved around accusations that high-ranking government officials colluded with tech giants under the guise of combating misinformation, leading to the censorship of speech on topics such as Hunter Biden's laptop, COVID-19 origins, and the efficacy of face masks.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the 6-3 majority, argued that the plaintiffs lacked a sufficient connection between their alleged injuries and the defendants' conduct. She maintained that the plaintiffs sought to review years of communications between federal officials and social media platforms without a concrete link to their claimed injuries.

Supreme Court Strikes Down States' Challenge to White House Coordination with Social Media Companies

Barrett emphasized that the Supreme Court's standing doctrine prevents it from exercising general legal oversight of other branches of government. As a result, the Court reversed the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the majority opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Alito asserted that the plaintiffs had standing based on their claims of direct censorship of their own speech and their right to listen to others who faced social media censorship.

Supreme Court Strikes Down States' Challenge to White House Coordination with Social Media Companies

Alito argued that the plaintiffs' alleged injuries were directly caused by the government's pressure on social media companies to suppress protected speech. He further highlighted that the lower courts' assessment of the evidence in the case suggested that it was one of the most significant free speech cases to reach the Supreme Court in recent years.

The case stemmed from a July 4, 2021 court order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty, which imposed a temporary injunction prohibiting White House and executive agency officials from meeting with tech companies to moderate content. The injunction argued that such actions violated the First Amendment.

Supreme Court Strikes Down States' Challenge to White House Coordination with Social Media Companies

The Justice Department had argued that the injunction would cause irreparable harm by preventing the federal government from collaborating with social media companies on initiatives to prevent harm to the American people and democratic processes. However, Alito contended that the evidence presented by the plaintiffs was sufficient to establish their standing to sue.

In her majority opinion, Barrett rejected the plaintiffs' reliance on past government censorship as evidence that future censorship was likely. She argued that the plaintiffs failed to link their previous social media restrictions to the defendants' communications with the platforms.

Supreme Court Strikes Down States' Challenge to White House Coordination with Social Media Companies

Alito countered that the evidence was more than adequate to establish the plaintiffs' standing to sue. He maintained that the officials' coercion caused the past and threatened future injuries and that an injunction was an appropriate remedy.

Alito expressed his disappointment that the Court avoided addressing the free speech issue raised in the case. He emphasized that the officials' actions were unconstitutional and that the Court's failure to recognize this could set a dangerous precedent for future attempts to control speech.

Barrett clarified that the Court's standing doctrine prevented it from exercising general legal oversight of other branches of government. She emphasized that the plaintiffs lacked a sufficient connection between their injuries and the defendants' conduct.