“The Supreme Court handed down a stern rebuke to some of the most right-wing judges in the country.., holding that no, judges do not get to micromanage how the Biden administration speaks to social media companies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The vote in Murthy v. Missouri<\/em><\/a> was 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joining the Court\u2019s three Democratic appointees in the majority. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As Barrett\u2019s majority opinion lays out, this lawsuit never should have been filed in the first place, and no federal court should have entertained it. Her opinion holds that the Murthy <\/em>plaintiffs, who raised vague allegations that the government tried to censor them, could not even show that the government did anything to harm them in the first place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Murthy<\/em> involves a wide range of communications among the White House, various federal agencies, and major social media platforms like Facebook and X (the website formerly known as Twitter). Some of these communications urged platforms to remove content<\/a>, such as speech seeking to recruit terrorists, to spread election disinformation, or to promote false and potentially harmful medical advice \u2014 including false claims about Covid-19 and vaccines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The plaintiffs in Murthy<\/em> are two red states plus an array of individuals who had content removed or suppressed by at least one of the social media platforms. They claimed that platforms censored them because of pressure from the government, and that this pressure violates the First Amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That is a highly dubious claim. While the First Amendment forbids the government from coercing media outlets into removing content, nothing prevents the government from asking<\/em> a platform to do so<\/a>. Indeed, at oral arguments in Murthy<\/em>, both Justices Elena Kagan and Kavanaugh recounted times when, during their service as White House officials, they pressured journalists to remove or correct editorials or other content that contained factual errors<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nevertheless, the far-right<\/a> US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit did not simply embrace this claim, it issued a vague and sweeping injunction forbidding the Biden administration from having \u201cconsistent and consequential<\/a>\u201d communications with social media companies \u2014 whatever that means. As a practical matter, this difficult-to-parse injunction made it virtually impossible for the administration to have any communications whatsoever with the platforms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the Supreme Court held that the Fifth Circuit was wrong to even consider these plaintiffs\u2019 dubious First Amendment arguments, ruling that federal courts lack jurisdiction over this case.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n