Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Biden Administration’s Efforts To Influence Social Media

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Biden administration in a high-profile case concerning its alleged coordination with social media companies.

The decision, handed down on Wednesday, concluded that the states who brought the lawsuit lacked the necessary standing.

Background of the Supreme Court Case: Murthy v. Missouri

The Supreme Court case, titled Murthy v. Missouri, originated from a lawsuit filed by state attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana.

They accused government officials of working with major social media companies under the guise of combating misinformation, which allegedly led to censorship of speech on various topics.

These included Hunter Biden’s laptop, COVID-19 origins, and the efficacy of face masks.

Majority Opinion and Lack of Standing

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, stated that the plaintiffs failed to establish a concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct.

“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,” Barrett wrote.

“This Court’s standing doctrine prevents us from ‘exercis[ing such] general legal oversight’ of the other branches of Government. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

The 6-3 Decision

The Supreme Court ruling was decided by a 6-3 vote, with Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissenting.

In her opinion for the majority, Barrett emphasized that to establish standing, plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk of imminent injury that is traceable to a government defendant and can be redressed by the sought injunction.

“Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction,” she added.

Allegations of Government Coercion

The Biden administration had been accused by Republican officials in Missouri and Louisiana, along with five social media users, of engaging in coercive tactics to silence dissenting voices on social media platforms.

They alleged that the administration’s efforts went beyond persuasion and amounted to an informal campaign to suppress content.

The plaintiffs pointed to the suppression of coverage related to Hunter Biden’s laptop by social media companies as evidence of unconstitutional government influence.

Internal Divisions Within Social Media Companies

Internal communications from Twitter highlighted that high-level company officials were divided on whether to suppress coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story.

This division countered claims that the platform’s actions were solely due to government pressure.

Additionally, the plaintiffs accused the FBI of wrongly identifying American-written posts as foreign content to have them removed.

Dissenting Opinion by Justice Alito

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, in his dissent joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, argued that the challengers had provided sufficient evidence to establish standing.

Alito described the case as one of the most important free speech cases to reach the Court in years.

He criticized the majority for not addressing what he considered a successful campaign of coercion by government officials.

“The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think,” Alito wrote.

Initial Blocking and Subsequent Appeals

A federal judge in Louisiana initially blocked the White House and various federal agencies from communicating with social media companies about removing content.

However, a three-judge panel of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals later narrowed this injunction, focusing on specific agencies like the White House, the US Surgeon General, the CDC, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and the FBI.

Government’s Argument and the Impact on Public Debate

The Biden administration argued in the Supreme Court that the social media plaintiffs lacked standing because their content was moderated before the administration flagged suspect posts to platforms.

The government contended that the states relied on a few past incidents of content moderation unrelated to specific governmental actions.

During oral arguments, several Supreme Court justices expressed concern about restricting the government’s ability to communicate with platforms over potentially problematic content, including threats to public figures or sensitive information about US troops.

Also Read: WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Released from British Prison After 5 Years, To Plead Guilty in US Pacific Island Court