SCOTUS 23-411: 6-3 Dissenting

Did the federal govt’s request that private social media take steps to prevent the dissemination of purported misinformation transform those companies’ content-moderation decisions int

26-June-2024: Addendum and Update at the end of this post

Facts of the Case

Multiple plaintiffs, including epidemiologists, consumer and human rights advocates, academics, and media operators, claimed that various defendants, including numerous federal agencies and officials, have engaged in censorship, targeting conservative-leaning speech on topics such as the 2020 presidential election, COVID-19 origins, mask and vaccine efficacy, and election integrity. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants used public statements and threats of regulatory action, such as reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, to induce social media platforms to suppress content, thereby violating the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. The States of Missouri and Louisiana also alleged harm due to the infringement of the free speech rights of their citizens.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the federal government from meeting with social media companies or otherwise seeking to influence their content-moderation policies. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the government’s motion for an emergency stay and granted certiorari to review the case on the merits.

Question

Did the federal government’s request that private social media companies take steps to prevent the dissemination of purported misinformation transform those companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and thus violate users’ First Amendment rights?

Syllabus

MURTHY, SURGEON GENERAL, ET AL. v. MISSOURI

ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 23–411. Argued March 18, 2024—Decided June 26, 2024

Opinion of the Court Delivered by Barrett

The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the years-long communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics. This Court’s standing doctrine prevents us from “exercis[ing such] general legal oversight” of the other branches of Government. TransUnion, 594 U. S., at 423–424. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Daily Signal

The Supreme Court struck down a lower court’s injunction preventing the federal government from pressuring Big Tech companies to suppress free speech in a pivotal ruling Wednesday.

The court did not rule on the question of whether the government may pressure social media companies to suppress speech in a way that would be illegal for the government to do itself. (IMPORTANT TO NOTE) Instead, the court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to establish Article III standing to bring the case.

link | archive

Vote: 6-3

BARRETT, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, and JACKSON, JJ., joined.

ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined

ADDENDUM: Oral Arguments 18 March 2024

link

UPDATE: 25 June 2024 (5 pm ET)

link

The addition of the word publicly to page 48 (highlighted in yellow)