In a 6-3 decision released on Wednesday, the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge brought by conservative social media users, ruling that the government can continue to notify social media companies about posts it deems to be misinformation and disinformation.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, explaining that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case forward. The Court did not rule on the First Amendment questions raised in the case, thereby allowing the government’s actions with social media companies to continue.
“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek. Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.” Barrett wrote in the majority opinion.
The issues at hand primarily related to social media posts about COVID-19. Coney Barrett acknowledged evidence that the White House “played a role” in moderating content on social media, but stated it was not sufficient to justify an injunction.
The plaintiffs cited instances where Facebook restricted posts by a Louisiana state representative about the COVID-19 vaccine, arguing that the posts were targeted due to pressure from the Biden administration on the tech company.
In the dissent, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, called the case “one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years” and criticized the Biden administration’s actions as “unconstitutional” and “dangerous.”
“It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so,” he wrote, stating that, “For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech. Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.”
