The United States Supreme Court disappointed many First Amendment advocates after turning away a case questioning communications between the Biden Administration and social media companies regarding COVID-19-related censorship.
In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that the plaintiffs who objected to the federal administration's collusion with social media companies to suppress certain topics did not have standing. Five private citizens and two states sued the Biden administration in Murthy V. Missouri, arguing the government had violated the First Amendment.
The complainants – including three doctors, a health care activist and a new website owner – argued social media platforms removed their posts under pressure from the federal government.
“The plaintiffs fail, by and large, to link their past social-media restrictions and the defendants’ communications with the platforms,” stated the court in its summary, calling the plaintiffs’ counterarguments “unpersuasive.”
“The state plaintiffs, Louisiana and Missouri, refer only to action taken by Facebook against a Louisiana state representative’s post about children and the COVID–19 vaccine,” the court continued. “But they never say when Facebook took action against the official’s post—a critical fact in establishing a causal link. Nor have the three plaintiff doctors established a likelihood that their past restrictions are traceable to either the White House officials or the CDC.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, stating that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was “wrong” when it concluded communications from Executive Branch officials “rendered them responsible for the private platforms’ moderation decisions.”
“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," wrote Barrett. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”
Barrett acknowledged that the lower court had ruled after discovery that officials from the White House, the Surgeon General’s Office, the CDC, the FBI, and CISA “likely ‘coerced’ or ‘significantly encouraged’ the platforms ‘to such extent that the[ir content-moderation] decision[s] should be deemed to be the decisions of the Government.’”
However, the justice said that Article III of the United States Constitution limits the federal court’s jurisdiction and cast doubt on the “one-step-removed, anticipatory nature of their alleged injuries.”
“We begin—and end—with standing,” wrote Barrett. “At this stage, neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. We therefore lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of the dispute.”
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
Alito suggested this “is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years.”
“Victims of the campaign perceived by the lower courts brought this action to ensure that the Government did not continue to coerce social media platforms to suppress speech,” he wrote in the dissent. “All these victims simply wanted to speak out on a question of the utmost public importance.”
“Freedom of speech serves many valuable purposes, but its most important role is protection of speech that is essential to democratic self-government … and speech that advances humanity’s store of knowledge, thought, and expression in fields such as science, medicine, history, the social sciences, philosophy, and the arts,” Alito added.
Alito said the COVID-19 pandemic remains “a matter of enormous medical, social, political, geopolitical, and economic importance” and that “our dedication to a free marketplace of ideas demands that dissenting views on such matters be allowed.” He also noted that “valuable speech” regarding COVID-19 and the world’s reaction to the pandemic has been suppressed.
