GOP-led states lost their bid to block the Biden administration from contacting social media companies to remove misinformation, as the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday they do not have standing to challenge the government's work with social media platforms—delivering a blow to conservatives' long-standing complaints that platforms are purportedly biased against them.
Conservative demonstrators protest outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on March 18 as ... [+]
Missouri, Louisiana and several individuals sued the Biden administration over its contacts with social media companies, claiming the government waged “a broad pressure campaign designed to coerce social media companies into suppressing speakers, viewpoints, and content disfavored by the government,” such as by asking platforms to remove misinformation about COVID-19 and 2020 election.
Justices ruled 6-3 the states did not have standing to bring the case, as they could not show any personal harm to them that was caused by the government’s contacts.
The states argued the Biden administration’s contacts with social media platforms unfairly punished conservatives and infringed on their freedom of speech, while the government argued its conduct “poses no First Amendment concern” as long as they’re trying to “inform and persuade” social media companies rather than “compel[ling]” them to change their content.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court’s majority, ruled the states could not challenge the Biden administration’s contacts based on whatever harms it may have caused their residents, and noted they couldn’t show the government has applied any continued pressure on social media platforms—pointing out that networks have continued to address COVID-19 misinformation even as the federal government has “wound down its own pandemic response measures.”
This story is breaking and will be updated.
The tech companies that the Biden administration contacted didn’t take any position in the case that favored either side. Industry groups filed a brief with the court that didn’t side with either party, but asked the court to institute a rule that prevents the government from using indirect means to unlawfully compel speech. The groups also wanted to make sure tech companies won't be held liable for the government’s actions if they do overreach and force platforms to censor certain content, saying in that case, the government would be infringing on the tech platforms’ First Amendment rights and the companies shouldn’t be the ones punished.
The government has long been prohibited from expressly controlling speech on private platforms, such as by directly forcing social media platforms to remove or censor certain content. The alleged conduct at issue in Murthy v. Missouri falls into a gray area that’s known as “jawboning,” defined by the Knight First Amendment Institute as “informal government efforts to persuade, cajole, or strong-arm private platforms to change their content-moderation practices,” which are harder to identify as being unlawful or permissible. Attorneys general in Missouri and Louisiana first sued the Biden administration over its social media contacts in 2022. A Trump-appointed district court judge sided with the states, barring the government from working with platforms, but an appeals court then narrowed that ruling, saying the government can’t coerce social media platforms but the district court judge’s order was “overbroad” in how it restricted the government’s contacts. The Supreme Court put the lower courts’ rulings on hold as they considered the case, meaning the Biden administration has been free to contact social media platforms in the meantime. The New York Times reported in March, however, that the Department of Homeland Security had still “suspended virtually all cooperation with the social media platforms” over disinformation posts that originate in the U.S.
Murthy v. Missouri and the GOP-led states’ grievances are part of a broader outcry on the right claiming social media platforms are biased against conservatives. Right-wing figures including former President Donald Trump have claimed platforms are trying to “silence” their voices as social media networks have banned high-profile conservatives—including Trump—even as research has shown there is no evidence to support their claims. Murthy v. Missouri is one of two social media cases stemming from that controversy to reach the Supreme Court this term, as groups representing the tech industry have also challenged so-called social media censorship laws in Florida and Texas that punish companies who suspend political candidates or censor content based on its “viewpoint.” The court has not yet ruled in those cases.