A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision may have substantial effects on social media censorship. Based on their content-moderation policies, social media platforms have taken actions to suppress certain categories of speech, such as speech deemed false and misleading. This movement was amped up during 2020 with the outbreak of COVID-19 and election season. During that time, federal officials regularly spoke with social media platforms regarding the misinformation circulating throughout respective platforms.
On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri, overturned a Fifth Circuit decision that placed limits on government officials communicating with social media companies about their content moderation policies. The respondents are two states (Missouri and Louisiana) and five individual social-media users who sued dozens of Executive Branch officials and agencies alleging that the government pressured the platforms to censor their speech in violation of the First Amendment. The Fifth Circuit previously held that all plaintiffs had Article III standing to seek injunctive relief and that the government entities and officials, by coercing or significantly encouraging the platforms’ moderation decisions, transformed those decisions into state actions.
The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, holding that none of the plaintiffs had legal standing to seek a preliminary injunction because they failed to meet Article III’s “case or controversy” requirement which requires at least one plaintiff establishing standing to sue. Standing is established by a demonstration of a substantial risk that they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek. Specifically, the Court held that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the causation requirement. That is, the plaintiffs failed to prove that it was government pressure on social media companies that directly led to their past posts being censored. In fact, Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out that “platforms continued to exercise their independent judgment even after communications with defendants began.”
Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court avoided ruling on whether the government’s communications with social media companies violated the First Amendment. As such, the government’s involvement in highlighting misinformation on social media has not been deemed unconstitutional and may continue for now. However, future plaintiffs could still bring a similar claim under different circumstances.
Justices Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch all dissented, explaining that they believed the respondents had brought forward enough evidence to establish standing. In the dissent, the Justices broke down each element of the standing standard and argued that the evidence set forth by respondents was sufficient. Additionally, they addressed the merits of the First Amendment claim and decided that the claim would likely prevail. The dissent highlights that the majority “unjustifiably” failed to address the threats that this case could have on the First Amendment.
It is unclear how this decision will impact the 2024 presidential election, but different groups have shared their thoughts on this decision. While some groups side with the dissent and believe that government communication impacts freedom of speech, others believe that it is the duty of the government to stop the spread of misinformation, especially during critical periods like the presidential election season.