Supreme Court rejects challenge to Biden administration's contacts with social media companies

Washington — The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a bid from a group of social media users and two states to curtail the Biden administration's efforts to pressure social media companies to remove content that officials said was misinformation.

The court determined that the users and the states, Louisiana and Missouri, did not have the legal right to seek an injunction against the Biden administration over its contacts with the platforms. The users had argued that their speech was unconstitutionally stifled when their social media posts were removed or suppressed after prodding by administration officials. 

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in the case known as Murthy v. Missouri, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett writing for the majority. She was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson. 

The decision by the high court reverses a lower court order that limited the contacts White House and administration officials could have with platforms, which the Justice Department had argued went too far. That injunction had been on hold while the Supreme Court considered the case.

"The plaintiffs rely on allegations of past government censorship as evidence that future censorship is likely," Barrett wrote. "But they fail, by and large, to link their past social-media restrictions to the defendants' communications with the platforms. Thus, the events of the past do little to help any of the plaintiffs establish standing to seek an injunction to prevent future harms."

In a dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Justice Samuel Alito called the case "one of the most important free speech cases to reach this court in years," and accused government officials of coercing private entities — the social media companies — to suppress speech.

The trio of dissenters criticized the majority for sidestepping the free speech issues raised in the case and permitting "the successful campaign of coercion ... to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear and think."

Murthy v. Missouri

The legal battle centered around the five social media users' claims that the Biden administration's communications with platforms violated their First Amendment rights. The challengers had accused federal officials of mounting a "sprawling federal 'Censorship Enterprise,'" through which they coerced social media companies into censoring or suppressing speech they disfavored.

The users and officials from Louisiana and Missouri urged the Supreme Court to limit how far the federal government can go in interactions with social media companies, arguing that the efforts from the Biden administration crossed the constitutional line from persuasion, which is allowed, to coercion, which is not. 

The Supreme Court's ruling comes as the federal government prepares to combat misinformation online ahead of the November presidential election, while confronting sophisticated artificial intelligence tools that are more readily available to the public. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the ruling from the court helps to ensure that the Biden administration can continue its work with tech companies to protect the American people.

"This administration engages with social media and other technology companies on critical topics, including terrorism threats, foreign malign influence campaigns, online harassment of women and children, and mental health of children and adolescents," she said in a statement. "The Supreme Court's decision today ensures this work can continue as the country faces ongoing threats online."

Jean-Pierre said the White House continues to believe that while social media companies make independent decisions about the information presented on their platforms, they have a responsibility to take into account the effects their sites have on the public.

The case was one of several before the justices in its current term that stood at the intersection of social media and the First Amendment's free speech protections. In this dispute, a federal district judge in Louisiana sided with the social media users, finding that White House officials and some federal agencies and their employees violated the First Amendment by coercing or significantly encouraging social media companies' content-moderation decisions. The judge issued a sweeping order restricting the Biden administration's contacts with platforms.

A federal appeals court agreed that certain White House officials and the FBI unconstitutionally coerced platforms to suppress content related to COVID-19 vaccines and the 2020 election. But the court narrowed the scope of the district court judge's order to cover a smaller group of federal officials.

The Supreme Court in October agreed to take up the case and consider whether the Biden administration impermissibly worked to suppress speech on Facebook, YouTube and X. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the court's decision to pause the lower court's injunction and said they would have maintained the limits on the Biden administration's contacts with platforms while the case proceeded.

The Biden administration had argued that they were using the bully pulpit to persuade platforms to address content it believed was problematic, especially in the context of its efforts to push Americans to get vaccinated during the pandemic. The administration warned that the limits put in place by the district court would hamper its ability to address national security threats or pass along public-health information.

Lawyers for the challengers, though, had claimed that the Biden administration was using social media companies to silence speakers and viewpoints and accused government officials of bullying the platforms.

Writing for the majority, Barrett said the 5th Circuit was wrong to affirm the district court's sweeping injunction. For some of the individual social media users whose content was targeted, she noted the social media restrictions began before Biden administration officials began discussions with the platforms.

"[W]ithout proof of an ongoing pressure campaign, it is entirely speculative that the platforms' future moderation decisions will be attributable, even in part, to the defendants," Barrett wrote.

The majority said that available evidence shows that the platforms have continued to enforce their policies against misinformation posted about COVID-19, even as the federal government ended the national emergency and unwound response measures.

"Enjoining the government defendants, therefore, is unlikely to affect the platforms' content-moderation decisions," the court said.

But Alito disagreed, and said it is "reasonable to infer" that the efforts of federal officials' impacted at least some of Facebook's content moderation decisions. Focusing specifically on Facebook and the targeting of Hines' posts, he called the Biden administration's efforts "subtle and sophisticated," and said some high-ranking officials "browbeat" platforms for months. 

Alito rejected the Justice Department's assertions that officials were using the bully pulpit to inform the public, and said its contention "stretches the concept beyond breaking point."

"In sum, the officials wielded potent authority. Their communications with Facebook were virtual demands. And Facebook's quavering responses to those demands show that it felt a strong need to yield," he said.

The dispute involving the Biden administration's contacts with social media companies was one of two the Supreme Court heard involving "jawboning," or informal pressure by the government on an intermediary to take certain actions that will suppress speech. 

In the first case, the court unanimously ruled the NRA "plausibly alleged" that New York's top financial regulator violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to end their business relationships with the NRA to "punish or suppress" the group's pro-gun rights advocacy. The court's ruling revives a lawsuit that the NRA filed against Maria Vullo, the former head of the New York State Department of Financial Services.