SCOTUS Ruling 6-3 Backs Biden’s Social Media Case

Today, the Supreme Court ruled in Murthy v. Missouri that the government can continue to urge social media platforms to remove what they view as problematic content, such as misinformation.

The Murthy v. Missouri case (filed initially as Missouri v. Biden) addresses the role that government officials can play in communicating with social media companies in developing and implementing content moderation policies. The case involves allegations by Missouri and Louisiana states and several private plaintiffs that federal government officials violated the First Amendment by “coercing” or “significantly encouraging” social media companies to remove or demote content from their platforms. The content in question touched on various divisive topics like the COVID-19 lab leak, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story.

The court did not delve into the First Amendment implications of this decision but instead ruled that the plaintiffs, two states and five social media users, did not have a legal right to sue. This ruling has been seen as a victory for the Biden administration, allowing the government to continue combating alleged misinformation on social media platforms.

Some critics argue that this decision could be seen as a threat to the First Amendment, as it allows the government to influence what content is allowed on social media platforms. However, the court’s decision was based on the lack of standing of the plaintiffs, rather than the First Amendment implications of the case.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a sharp 68-page dissent, joined by two other conservatives, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch. He suggested that the dispute was “one of the most important free speech cases in the country’s history.” Alito also warned that “the actions of officials in the case were ‘blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so.'”