On Wednesday, the Supreme Court supported the Biden administration in a conflict with Republican-led states over the extent of federal authority in addressing controversial social media posts on subjects like COVID-19 and election security.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices nullified lower-court rulings that favored Louisiana, Missouri, and other parties. These parties claimed that Democratic administration officials pressured social media platforms to unlawfully suppress conservative viewpoints.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court, stated that the states and other parties lacked the legal right, or standing, to sue. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas dissented.
This decision is not expected to impact regular social media users or their posts.
This case is one of several before the court this term affecting social media companies in the context of free speech. In February, the court heard arguments about Republican-enacted laws in Florida and Texas that prevent large social media companies from removing posts based on their expressed views. In March, the court set standards for when public officials can block their social media followers.
Both the state law cases and the one decided Wednesday revolve around the theme of complaints that platforms are censoring conservative viewpoints.
The states argued that officials from the White House, the surgeon general, the FBI, and the U.S. cybersecurity agency exerted “unrelenting pressure” to force changes in online content on social media platforms.
During arguments in March, the justices seemed broadly skeptical of these claims and several expressed concern that common interactions between government officials and the platforms might be affected by a ruling in favor of the states.
The Biden administration highlighted these concerns, noting that a ruling for the states could hinder the government’s ability to communicate with social media companies about antisemitic and anti-Muslim posts, as well as national security, public health, and election integrity issues.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the court made the right decision as it allows the Biden Administration to continue its crucial work with technology companies to protect the safety and security of Americans.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill called the decision “unfortunate and disappointing,” arguing that it allows the federal government to coerce tech platforms into censoring speech protected by the First Amendment. She criticized the majority for dismissing what she called the worst government coercion scheme in history.
The justices did not address the substance of the states’ claims or the administration’s response in their decision.
“We begin — and end — with standing,” Barrett wrote. “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.”
In dissent, Alito argued that the states had sufficiently demonstrated their right to sue, stating that high-ranking government officials had placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress free speech.
Some free speech advocates praised the decision but were disappointed by the lack of guidance from the court. Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, emphasized the importance of the Supreme Court clarifying the line between permissible attempts to persuade and impermissible attempts to coerce, especially in the months leading up to an election.
