The United States Supreme Court's ruling in Murthy v. Missouri on June 26, 2024 delivered an end to a long awaited decision regarding the interplay between social media, government action, and free speech. Without deciding the case on the merits, the Court delivered a 6-3 decision, finding that the individual plaintiffs and states lacked standing to sue federal officials for allegedly pressuring social media platforms to suppress certain speech. Notably, the plaintiffs sought protection from alleged future suppression of their speech and not past suppression of their speech. This ruling not only underscores the complexities of First Amendment rights in the digital age but also highlights the ongoing debate over the role of social media platforms and government in moderating online discourse.
Facts
Social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, suppress certain categories of speech, place warning labels on some posts, delete others, or demote content so that it is less visible to other users. Frequently, they ban users who violate their policies. They generally target speech they deem to be false or misleading. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the social media platforms announced they would enforce their policies against false content about the pandemic and subsequently deleted posts on a number of subjects that violated their policies. The platforms also applied their same policies during the 2020 presidential election.
Various federal officials from the executive branch spoke with the social media platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic and presidential election. Some of the federal officials pushed them or strongly encouraged them to suppress certain content.
Plaintiffs
The plaintiffs are two States and five social media users who sued multiple executive branch officials and agencies alleging they pressured the social media platforms to suppress free speech in violation of the First Amendment. The individual plaintiffs allege that some of the platforms removed their COVID-19 pandemic or election related content. The States claim the platforms suppressed the free speech of state entities and officials as well as their citizens’ speech. The social media platforms restricted the content, but claimed the federal government was the reason for doing so.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs limiting the extent to which the federal executive branch could communicate with social media platforms. The District Court held that the federal officials likely “coerced” or “encouraged” the platforms with such pressure that the decisions made by the social media companies “should be deemed to be the decisions of the Government.” The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Fifth Circuit ruled the individual plaintiffs had standing because the social media companies suppressed their speech and their decisions were “traceable to government-coerced enforcement.” The Fifth Circuit also ruled the States had standing because the social media companies had suppressed state officials’ speech. The Fifth Circuit explained that “a private party’s conduct may be state action if the government coerced or significantly encouraged it.” In conclusion, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the federal officials likely coerced and significantly encouraged the social media companies to restrict or moderate content. The federal agencies and officials appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Opinion of the Court
With Justice Barrett writing the opinion for the Court, the Supreme Court reversed the decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and sent the case back for further proceedings. The majority concluded that the individual and state plaintiffs did not establish standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. The opinion started with a reference to Article III of the United States Constitution which limits the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court to “cases” and “controversies.” That axiomatic principle states that federal courts do not have the authority to review statutes or executive action unless it is “to redress or prevent actual or imminently threatened injury to persons caused by . . . official violation of law.” Unless a plaintiff can satisfy this principle, then that plaintiff does not have standing to sue. Notably, the majority pointed out that the plaintiffs claimed standing based on the “direct censorship” of their own speech yet did not seek to enjoin the social media platforms from restricting their speech. Instead they sought to enjoin federal agencies or officials from pressuring social media platforms to inhibit their future speech. Thus, their claims by definition can be defined as a one-step-removed anticipating nature of possible future injuries.
The Opinion noted that federal courts cannot redress “injury that results from the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Second, the Court stated, because the plaintiffs request future relief the legal standard is that they must face “a real and immediate threat of immediate injury.” Together, those standards would require the plaintiffs to demonstrate that “a substantial risk. . . in the near future, on at least one platform will restrict the speech of at least one plaintiff in response to the actions of at least one Government defendant.” As expressed by Justice Barrett, “that is a tall order.”
Holding
Neither the individual plaintiffs nor the state plaintiffs produced enough evidence to establish a “case” or “controversy” and therefore they lacked standing to seek an injunction prohibiting governmental officers or agencies in the future from communicating with social media platforms regarding content moderation decisions.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Alito wrote the dissenting opinion, with Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch joining. The Dissent highlighted the fact that federal officials continuously and persistently bothered or hectored Facebook to crack down on what the federal officials saw as content unhelpful to governmental goals, not only posts that the federal officials thought were false or misleading but also stories that they did not claim to be literally false but nevertheless wanted removed. In sum, the Dissent asserted that the federal officials and agencies’ request to alter or delete the content constituted demands by the federal government that the social media platforms remove the speech. The social media platforms yielded to those demands. In conclusion, the Dissent averred that the plaintiffs are “likely to prevail on their claim that the executive branch coerced Facebook into censoring speech” and therefore, the Fifth Circuit opinion should be affirmed. In sum, the Dissent highlighted the dangers of the government controlling online speech.
Summary
The Supreme Court rejected an injunction for alleged First Amendment violations against the federal government to prevent them from communicating with or urging social media platforms to restrict or delete speech. The Court did not rule on the merits of the case, instead the essence of the opinion focused on the concept of jurisdictional standing and the plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate standing to bring suit.