The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit from state attorneys in Missouri and Louisiana to curtail the Biden administration’s efforts to coerce social media companies to remove content officials said was misinformation.
In a 6-3 ruling, the court found the group of social media users and states lacked standing to bring such claims.
“We begin—and end—with standing," the majority opinion in Murthy v. Missouri reads. "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."
The ruling throws out a broad court order issued last year by federal judge in Louisiana and upheld by the 5th Circuit Court that threatened hundreds of Biden administration officials with a contempt citation if they “significantly encouraged” a platform to remove some content.
Social media sites did not sue or complain their rights were violated.
Instead, Republican state attorneys in Missouri and Louisiana sued alleging the right to free speech in this country was being violated by the Biden administration’s “sprawling federal censorship enterprise.” They pointed to actions by the White House as well as the FBI, the Office of the Surgeon General and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In October, in response to an appeal from Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the justices had put the Louisiana judge’s order on hold over dissents by Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch. “Government censorship of private speech is antithetical to our democratic form of government,” Alito wrote at the time.
But the justices agreed to hear arguments and rule on the 1st Amendment issue raised in the case of Murthy vs. Missouri. (LA Times)
Recommended
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
Alito mincing no words in what SCOTUS has done with Murthy ruling:
— Billy McMorris (@FBillMcMorris) June 26, 2024
"The Court...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" pic.twitter.com/uYYnNifJoF
GWU law professor Jonathan Turley explained what the "frustrating" ruling means.
Jonathan Turley breaks down the frustrating anti-free speech ruling in Murthy v. Missouri.
— Media Research Center (@theMRC) June 26, 2024
"The Government is engaging in censorship by surrogate... they have made a mockery of the limits of the 1st Amendment." pic.twitter.com/K2eKnJtloF
“While this isn’t the outcome we were hoping for, this case is a huge win for Americans and for the whole country, because it exposed nearly every part of the Biden Administration’s vast ‘censorship enterprise.’ I’m extremely proud to have filed this case as Missouri’s Attorney General," said Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO). "Many knew that censorship was happening before this case, but Missouri v. Biden and later Murthy v. Missouri broke the dam wide open and showed the entire world the lengths that the Biden Administration and Democrats went to silence disfavored speech. While exposing this censorship is a win, the fight is far from over. I promise that I will never stop fighting to ensure that Americans’ First Amendment rights are jealously guarded, and I will continue to work to dismantle every last facet of the Biden Administration’s censorship industrial complex."
Join the conversation as a VIP Member