WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security.
By a 6-3 vote, the justices threw out lower-court rulings that favored Louisiana, Missouri and other parties in their claims that officials in the Democratic administration leaned on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court that the states and other parties did not have the legal right, or standing, to sue.
People are also reading…
Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented.
The case is among several before the court this term that affect social media companies in the context of free speech. In February, the court heard arguments over Republican-passed laws in Florida and Texas that prohibit large social media companies from taking down posts because of the views they express. In March, the court laid out standards for when public officials can block their social media followers.
The cases over state laws and the one that was decided Wednesday are variations on the same theme, complaints that the platforms are censoring conservative viewpoints.
The states had argued that White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. cybersecurity agency are among those who applied “unrelenting pressure” to coerce changes in online content on social media platforms.
But the justices appeared broadly skeptical of those claims during arguments in March and several worried that common interactions between government officials and the platforms could be affected by a ruling for the states.
The Biden administration underscored those concerns when it noted that the government would lose its ability to communicate with the social media companies about antisemitic and anti-Muslim posts, as well as on issues of national security, public health and election integrity.
The Supreme Court had earlier acted to keep the lower-court rulings on hold. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas would have allowed the restrictions on government contacts with the platforms to go into effect.
Free speech advocates had urged the court to use the case to draw an appropriate line between the government’s acceptable use of the bully pulpit and coercive threats to free speech.
A panel of three judges on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled earlier that the Biden administration had probably brought unconstitutional pressure on the media platforms. The appellate panel said officials cannot attempt to “coerce or significantly encourage” changes in online content. The panel had previously narrowed a more sweeping order from a federal judge, who wanted to include even more government officials and prohibit mere encouragement of content changes.
The case is Murthy v. Missouri, 23-411.
Notable Supreme Court cases of 2024
Supreme Court upholds a gun control law intended to protect domestic violence victims
The justices ruled in favor of a 1994 ban on firearms for people under restraining orders to stay away from their spouses or partners.
Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era ban on bump stocks, gun accessories used in 2017 massacre
The high court found 6-3 that the Trump administration did not follow federal law when it reversed course and banned bump stocks.
Unanimous Supreme Court preserves access to widely used abortion medication
The Supreme Court has preserved access to a medication that was used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. last year.
Supreme Court clears the way for the NRA’s free speech lawsuit against an ex-New York official
The unanimous opinion reverses a lower court decision tossing out the gun rights group’s lawsuit against ex-New York State Department of Financial Services Ssuperintendent Maria Vullo.
Supreme Court finds no bias against Black voters in a South Carolina congressional district
The Supreme Court has preserved a Republican-held South Carolina congressional district, rejecting a lower-court ruling the district discriminated against Black voters.
Supreme Court sides with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, spurning a conservative attack
The Supreme Court has rejected a conservative-led attack that could've undermined the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack
The Supreme Court on Monday restored Donald Trump to 2024 presidential primary ballots, rejecting state attempts to hold the Republican former president accountable for the Capitol riot.
Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
In this Series
Notable Supreme Court cases of 2024
- Updated
Supreme Court makes it harder to charge Capitol riot defendants with obstruction, charge Trump faces
- Updated
Supreme Court weakens federal regulators, overturning decades-old Chevron decision
- Updated
Supreme Court allows cities to enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside
- 15 updates
- Previous
- Next
'); var s = document.createElement('script'); s.setAttribute('src', 'https://assets.revcontent.com/master/delivery.js'); document.body.appendChild(s); window.removeEventListener('scroll', throttledRevContent); __tnt.log('Load Rev Content'); } } }, 100); window.addEventListener('scroll', throttledRevContent); }
Respond: Write a letter to the editor | Write a guest opinion
Subscribe to stay connected to Tucson. A subscription helps you access more of the local stories that keep you connected to the community.
Be the first to know
Get local news delivered to your inbox!
