On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to impose restrictions on how Joe Biden's administration communicates with social media platforms, rejecting a challenge based on free speech concerns regarding the removal of posts labeled as misinformation about elections and COVID-19.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices overturned a 2023 ruling by a lower court that had found various federal officials likely violated the First Amendment by encouraging the removal of certain posts. The case was brought by Missouri and Louisiana, along with five individuals.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans had previously issued an injunction limiting such contacts by the administration. However, the Supreme Court's ruling now nullifies that injunction.
The lawsuit, filed in 2022, targeted officials and agencies across the federal government, including the White House, FBI, surgeon general's office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
In the opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court determined that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary legal standing to sue the administration. Barrett wrote that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a “concrete link” between the officials' actions and any harm they suffered. “They emphasize that hearing unfettered speech on social media is critical to their work,” Barrett noted. “But they do not point to any specific instance of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm.”
“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a Government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” wrote Justice Barrett for the majority. “No plaintiff has carried that burden.”
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the majority decision.
The plaintiffs had argued that the administration's actions infringed upon the rights of social media users whose posts were removed by platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter (now known as X). The core issue was whether the administration's communication amounted to mere persuasion or crossed into coercion, compelling platforms to unlawfully censor disfavored speech—a practice referred to as “jawboning.”
With the Supreme Court's decision, the Biden administration's ability to communicate with social media platforms about content moderation remains intact.
