By a 6-3 vote, the justices overturned lower court rulings favoring Louisiana, Missouri and other parties that had alleged that Democratic officials used social media to exert pressure to unconstitutionally suppress conservative viewpoints.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court that the states and other parties had neither the correct nor the standing to sue. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented.
The decision mustn’t impact typical social media users or their posts.
The case is one among several before the court this legislative session involving social media corporations within the context of free speech. In February, the court heard arguments on Laws passed by Republicans in Florida and Texas prohibit the most important social media corporations from removing posts based on the views expressed in them. In March, the court ruled Standards for when public officials can block their social media followers.
The cases involving state law and the case decided Wednesday are variations on the identical theme: complaints that the platforms censor conservative viewpoints.
The states had argued that White House communications officials, the Surgeon General, the FBI and the U.S. Cybersecurity Agency were amongst those exerting “relentless pressure” to force changes to online content on social media platforms.
At their hearings in March, the judges were largely skeptical of those allegations, and a few of them feared that a ruling in favor of the states could impact the same old dealings between government officials and the platforms.
The Biden administration underscored these concerns when it noted that the federal government would lose its ability to speak with social media corporations about anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic posts, in addition to problems with national security, public health and election integrity.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the court reached the correct conclusion because “it helps ensure that the Biden administration can continue its important work with technology companies to keep the American people safe, after years of extreme and unfounded Republican attacks on public officials who have done important work to keep Americans safe.”
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill called the choice “regrettable and disappointing.” The court majority, Murrill said in an announcement, “gives the federal government free rein to threaten technology platforms and compel them to engage in censorship and suppression of speech, which is undeniably protected by the First Amendment. The majority waves its hand at the worst government coercion program in history.”
In their decision on Wednesday, the judges didn’t address the substance of the states’ claims or the federal government’s response.
“We begin – and end – with standing,” Barrett wrote. “At this time, neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have demonstrated standing to seek a preliminary injunction against any of the defendants. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to resolve the issue.”
In his dissent, Alito wrote that the states had sufficiently demonstrated their right to sue. “For months, senior government officials have exerted relentless pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech. Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent,” he wrote for the three justices within the minority.
Some free speech advocates praised the end result but complained that the court offered little guidance.
“The platforms are attractive targets for official pressure, and that’s why it’s critical that the Supreme Court clarify the line between permissible attempts at persuasion and impermissible attempts at coercion,” said Alex Abdo, litigation director on the Knight First Amendment Institute. “This guidance would have been especially valuable in the months leading up to the election.”
The Supreme Court had previously decided to place the lower courts’ rulings on hold. Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas had allowed the restrictions on government contacts with the platforms to come back into force.
Free speech advocates had urged the court to make use of the case to attract a transparent line between acceptable abuse of presidency power and threats to free speech posed by coercive measures.
A 3-judge panel of the fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans had previously ruled that the Biden administration likely exerted unconstitutional pressure on the media platforms. The appeals panel said officials must not try to “coerce or substantially encourage” changes to online content. The panel had previously limited a broader order by a federal judge that sought to incorporate much more government officials and prohibit the mere encouragement of content changes.
It was the sixth decision this term wherein the court overturned rulings from the fifth Circuit, one of the crucial conservative appeals courts within the country. Last week, the court upheld a gun ban designed to guard victims of domestic violence, overturning a choice by a fifth Circuit panel.
At the start of June, the court unanimously ruled that anti-abortion activists weren’t entitled to challenge decisions by the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to facilitate access to the abortifacient mifepristone.
The case is Murthy v. Missouri, 23-411.
