The Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit accusing Biden of social media censorship

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration on Wednesday in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to crack down on controversial social media posts on topics like Covid-19 and election security.

In a 6-3 vote, the justices rejected lower court rulings that favored Louisiana, Missouri and other parties, saying Democratic administration officials relied on social media platforms to unconstitutionally suppress conservative viewpoints.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett wrote to the court that states and other parties did not have the right or standing to bring the lawsuits. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas did not dissent.

The decision should not impact typical social media users or their posts.

The case is one of several pending in court this term that involve social media companies in the context of free speech. In February, the court heard disputes over Republican-passed laws in Florida and Texas that prohibit large social media companies from removing posts based on the views they express. In March, the court set standards for when public officials can block their followers on social media.

The state regulation cases and the one decided Wednesday are variations on the same theme, complaints that platforms are censoring conservative viewpoints.

The states argued that White House communications staff, the Surgeon General, the FBI and the U.S. Cybersecurity Agency are among those who exerted “unrelenting pressure” to force changes to online content on social media platforms.

During the March debates, the justices appeared broadly skeptical of these claims, with several of them concerned that a ruling for the states could impact common interactions between government officials and the platforms.

The Biden administration has highlighted these concerns, noting that the government would lose its ability to communicate with social media companies about anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim posts, as well as issues of national security, public health and election integrity.

But the justices did not consider the merits of the states’ claims or the administration’s response in their Wednesday decision.

“We begin — and end — with standing,” Barrett wrote. “At this stage, neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to decide the merits of the dispute.”

In dissent, Alito wrote that states had sufficiently demonstrated their right to sue. “For months, senior government officials have put unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech. Because the court unreasonably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent,” he wrote on behalf of the three justices in the minority.

The Supreme Court has previously taken action to uphold lower court rulings. Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas would allow restrictions on government dealings with platforms to go into effect.

Free speech advocates urged the court to use the case to draw the right line between the government’s acceptable use of the bullying bully pulpit and coercive threats to free speech.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans previously ruled that the Biden administration likely exerted unconstitutional pressure on media platforms. The appeals panel said officials cannot attempt to “force or significantly encourage” changes to online content. The panel had previously narrowed down a more sweeping ruling by a federal judge who wanted to include even more government officials and prohibit simply encouraging content changes.

The ruling was the sixth this term in which the court rejected rulings from the Fifth Circuit, one of the most conservative appellate courts in the country. Last week, the court upheld a gun restriction intended to protect victims of domestic violence, overruling a 5th Circuit panel.

In early June, the court unanimously ruled that anti-abortion doctors did not have standing to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s decision to facilitate access to the abortion drug mifepristone.

The case is Murthy v. Missouri, 23-411.

” Previous

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange returns to Australia a free man after a legal battle in the US