The Supreme Court on Wednesday rebuffed states and anti-lockdown advocates who said the government violated their First Amendment rights by asking social media giants to remove or limit coronavirus misinformation.
The 6-3 decision frees federal officials to talk with social media companies about combating misinformation. The majority found that the states and advocates didn’t have standing to bring the case, because they didn’t show that the government’s actions harmed them or that the government officials directly affected the policies of the social media companies.
The case, Murthy v. Missouri, centered on whether Biden officials overstepped their authority when pressing platforms like Facebook and Twitter to remove or downgrade posts questioning vaccine safety, masking policies, and theories about the virus’ origins.
The companies have publicly maintained that they developed and executed their own social media policies, but they also were in regular dialogue with White House and federal health officials.
Plaintiffs in the case, including two state attorneys general and two doctors who promoted the herd immunity theory, argued that those conversations limited free speech and ostracized skeptics of the administration’s Covid-19 policies.
Yet justices, when they heard arguments in March, appeared skeptical of the argument that the White House coerced companies or that plaintiffs suffered harm from restricted social media posts. Several, including conservative justices, questioned when the government could press platforms to restrict posts — such as on national security issues or trends endangering teens.
The decision reverses a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that government officials overstepped their roles. The lower court “erred by treating the defendants, plaintiffs, and platforms each as a unified whole,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion.
The plaintiffs ultimately failed to show a “concrete link” between federal officials’ frequent communications with social media platforms and content moderation policies that led to limited or removed posts, Barrett concluded.
The decision is likely to be applauded by public health experts and tech industry lobbyists alike. Health officials argue that using the White House’s bully pulpit is an important tool to combat misinformation; the industry has said government interference in their moderation policies could set a dangerous precedent for site content.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
“If the lower courts’ assessment of the voluminous record is correct, this is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years,” Alito wrote. “The Court, however … permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.”
Scrutiny of government communications throughout the pandemic will likely continue.
“In light of the Supreme Court’s reluctance to fully protect free speech today, we will need concrete action by Congress, and a popular movement, to restore free speech rights as a central plank of the American civic religion,” Jayanta Bhattacharya, a Stanford University School of Medicine professor and a plaintiff in the case, said in a statement.