The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Biden administration in Murthy v. Missouri, a COVID-19-era social media censorship case initiated by Republican attorneys general and social media users. The court ultimately found the plaintiffs did not have sufficient cause or evidence to sue the government.
The plaintiffs accused Surgeon General Murthy and the Biden Administration of conspiring to pressure social media companies to suppress COVID-19-related content, violating the First Amendment.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, stated the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, as they couldn’t demonstrate a direct injury traceable to government actions. In her complete statement, Justice Barrett wrote:
“The plaintiffs, two States and five social-media users, sued dozens of Executive Branch officials and agencies, alleging that they pressured the platforms to suppress protected speech in violation of the First Amendment. The Fifth Circuit agreed, concluding that the officials’ communications rendered them responsible for the private platforms’ moderation decisions. It then affirmed a sweeping preliminary injunction. The Fifth Circuit was wrong to do so. To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a Government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek. Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”
The dissent, led by Justice Samuel Alito, argued that the case involved a significant free speech issue and criticized the majority for ignoring the government’s “campaign of coercion” that led to substantial suppression of speech on social media platforms.
Alito argued that the government’s continuous pressure on social media companies to comply with its demands was unconstitutional and dangerous.
Justice Alito wrote, “If the lower courts’ assessment of the voluminous record is correct, this is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years. Freedom of speech serves many valuable purposes, but its most important role is protection of speech that is essential to democratic self-government.”
In 2022, Missouri and Louisiana AGs, and several social media users filed the case, contending that their posts on platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and X were suppressed due to government pressure. US District Judge Terry Doughty initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, a decision upheld by the 5th Circuit before reaching the Supreme Court.
Justice Barrett explained that the plaintiffs could not prove a substantial risk of future injury directly linked to the government. She noted the accusations involved various federal officials and agencies, complicating the claim. The majority opinion emphasized the need for concrete evidence to establish standing, which the plaintiffs failed to provide.
