States had argued the federal government strong-armed social media platforms into toeing the party line on various issues.
The Supreme Court threw out a challenge on June 26 to the federal government’s actions when it communicated with social media platforms about public health issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The justices voted 6–3 to find that those challenging the government lacked legal standing to do so.
The states had argued that the federal government strong-armed social media companies into censoring disfavored views on important public issues, such as side effects related to COVID-19 vaccines and the pandemic lockdowns. Applying this kind of pressure violates the First Amendment, the states said.
Conservatives and others have complained that social media censors information about transgender issues, COVID-19, and the 2020 election. They were particularly concerned about coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop computer that contained information they say might have harmed President Joe Biden’s 2020 election campaign had it been allowed to circulate freely.
Some on the left say removing posts on social media is necessary to prevent the spread of misinformation, and some have complained that social media platforms don’t do enough to combat falsehoods.
The case is Murthy v. Missouri. The majority opinion was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
The petitioner, Dr. Vivek Murthy, is the U.S. surgeon general. The state of Missouri and other parties sued the federal government for censorship because it allegedly pressured social media companies to suppress certain content.
During oral arguments on March 18, Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga said that “government censorship has no place in our democracy.”
The evidence shows that there was “unrelenting pressure by the government to coerce social media platforms to suppress the speech of millions of Americans,” he said.
The federal district court described the government’s behavior as “the most massive attack against free speech in American history, including the censorship of renowned scientists opining in their areas of expertise.”
“The government’s levers of pressure are anathema to the First Amendment,” Mr. Aguiñaga said.
