The Supreme Court said Wednesday it would not decide whether Biden administration officials could contact social media platforms to counter information the officials say is misinformation, saying states and users who challenged the communications had not suffered harm that would give them the right to sue.
Although the ruling leaves fundamental legal questions unanswered, it was a major substantive victory for the administration.
The vote was 6-3, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissenting.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing the majority opinion, wrote that the Supreme Court has limited power to criticize the executive branch.
“Plaintiffs are seeking an investigation into the communications of dozens of federal employees across a variety of agencies on a variety of social media platforms over the course of years about a variety of topics, despite the lack of a specific connection between their injuries and Defendants' conduct,” she wrote. “Our standing principles preclude the agency from exercising such general legal oversight over other government agencies.”
The lawsuit was launched after administration officials sent a flood of communications to the platforms demanding they remove posts about topics like COVID-19 vaccines and claims of election fraud. The attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, both Republicans, sued, arguing that many of those communications violated the First Amendment.
Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana agreed, saying the case could be “the most sweeping attack on free speech in American history.”
Judge Doughty, an appointee of President Donald J. Trump, issued a 10-item injunction barring the countless officials from “threatening, pressuring, or coercing in any way social media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or abridge any content that contains protected free speech.”
A three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans unanimously narrowed the scope of the injunction, but not by much.
In an unsigned opinion, the committee said administration officials had overly interfered or threatened social media companies into taking action. The committee issued an injunction barring many of the officials from forcing or significantly encouraging social media companies to remove content protected by the First Amendment.
The revised injunction states that the agencies “shall not take any action, whether formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to compel or significantly encourage social media companies to remove, delete, suppress or reduce any content posted on social media that contains protected free speech, including through algorithm changes.”
Two of the jurors, Judge Edith B. Clement and Judge Jennifer W. Elrod, were appointed by President George W. Bush. The third, Judge Don R. Willett, was appointed by President Trump.
The Biden administration filed an emergency petition in September, asking the Supreme Court to suspend the injunction, arguing that the government has the right to express its views and persuade other countries to take action.
The Court granted the Administration's motion, stayed the Fifth Circuit's decision, and agreed to hear Murthy v. Missouri, No. 23-411.
Three justices dissented in the September ruling. “Government censorship of private speech is antithetical to our democratic form of government, and today's decision is therefore deeply disturbing,” Justice Alito wrote, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch joining.