SCOTUS Trashes Lawsuit vs. Biden Administration’s Social Media Censorship

By Jose Resurreccion

Jun 27, 2024 02:07 AM EDT

SCOTUS Trashes Lawsuit vs. Biden Administration’s Social Media Censorship — Exterior view of the U.S. Supreme Court building prior to a roundtable discussion on Supreme Court Ethics conducted by Democrats of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee at the Rayburn House Office Building on June 11, 2024 in Washington, DC.
(Photo : Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Court Accountability)

The US Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit seeking to restrict the federal government's ability to communicate with social media firms like Google, Meta, and Twitter/X about content moderation.

Roll Call reported that the 6-3 decision in what the apex court filed as "Murthy v. Missouri et al." overturned Wednesday (June 26) a US Court of Appeals ruling that would have supposedly restricted the federal government's communication with big tech over what the plaintiffs say as "misinformation" on issues like COVID-19 vaccines and election interference.

Censorship Claims

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority decision, which found that the two Republican-led states and social media users who filed the lawsuit had no legal right to do so because they could not substantiate their claims that government pressure suppressed their First Amendment rights.

It was revealed that the plaintiffs tried to use government communication with big tech firms after blocking decisions against them as evidence.

Barrett added that social media platforms restricted posts about the pandemic and the US election before and after government officials contacted them, which complicated any claims of censorship.

On the other hand, Justices Samuel Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissentingly said that their colleagues in the majority ignored the subtle effects of government officials' "blatantly unconstitutional" pressure campaign against social media companies.

Alito wrote that the majority decision permitted what the dissent called "the successful campaign of coercion" to stand as an attractive model for future officials who sought to control what people say, hear, and think, which violates the First Amendment.

He added that social media firms have a "powerful incentive" to keep government officials happy and that the government should be held accountable for the actions social media companies took after the broad campaign from officials.

GOP Senator Calls Murthy v. Missouri 'Huge Win for Americans'

The Court of Appeals decision that the Supreme Court overturned previously issued a sweeping injunction to halt what it said were government communication with social media companies that constituted attempts at censorship.

However, the Biden administration maintained that its communication with social media companies expressed government views about their responsibility to police their sites.

House Judiciary chair Jim Jordan (OH) attended the oral arguments in the case, as well as held multiple hearings on allegations that the BIden administration conspired with big tech to censor conservative-leaning speech online.

Meanwhile, Republican Senator Eric Schmitt (MO) told Newsmax that the case was a "huge win for Americans" despite being a legal defeat and was proud to file the lawsuit.

It could be recalled that Schmitt filed the original lawsuit when he was the state's attorney general.

He added that the Supreme Court decision was not the end of his crusade to ensure that First Amendment rights would be maintained and "jealously guarded."