Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS): While considering the instant petition revolving around challenging the communications of the US Government Officials vis-a-vis content moderation by social media platforms to suppress misleading and false information especially information related to Covid-19 and 2020 Presidential Elections, the Full Bench of the Court with a ratio of 6:3, held that the respondents, i.e., States of Missouri and Louisiana and five individual social media users, could not establish their locus standi under Article III to seek any injunction against the Govt. Officials regarding the impugned communications.
Background: The instant matter was related to dispensation of information vis-a-vis Covid-19. In 2020 with the outbreak of COVID—19, the social media platforms announced that they would enforce content moderation policies against users who post false or misleading content about the pandemic. The platforms also applied misinformation policies during the 2020 Presidential election season.
During this period, various federal officials regularly spoke with the platforms about COVID—19 and election-related misinformation. The petitioner, who is the Surgeon General, issued a health advisory that encouraged the platforms to take steps to prevent COVID—19 misinformation “from taking hold.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) alerted the platforms on COVID—19 misinformation trends and flagged example posts. Similarly, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency communicated with the platforms about election-related misinformation in advance of the 2020 Presidential election and the 2022 midterm elections.
The respondents, which included the States of Missouri and Louisiana and five individual social media users, sued several Executive Branch officials and agencies, alleging that the US Government pressured the social media platforms to censor their speech in violation of the First Amendment.
Court’s Assessment (Majority Opinion): The majority opinion was delivered by Amy Coney Barrett, J.*, who was joined by John Roberts, CJ., Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson, JJ.
As per the majority, Article III’s “case or controversy” requirement is “fundamental” to the “proper role” of the Judiciary. A proper case or controversy exists only when at least one plaintiff establishes that they have a standing to sue, i.e., the individual has suffered, or will suffer, an injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling.
The majority pointed out that the respondents’ theories of standing depend on the platforms’ actions, however, they did not seek to enjoin the platforms from restricting any posts or accounts. Instead, they sought to enjoin the Government agencies and officials from pressuring or encouraging the platforms to suppress protected speech in the future.
The majority noted that while the record reflected that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the social media platforms’ moderation choices, the evidence indicated that the platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment. The majority further pointed out that the social media platforms had started to moderate the respondents’ content way before the US Govt.’s involvement via the abovementioned impugned communications.
It was pointed out that the respondents by and large failed to link their past social-media restrictions and the petitioners’ communications with the platforms. “They highlight restrictions imposed by Twitter and LinkedIn but point only to Facebook’s communications with White House officials”.
It was stated that to obtain forward-looking relief, a party must establish a substantial risk of future injury that is traceable to the Government and likely to be redressed by an injunction against them. The majority pointed out that the respondents who did not point to any past restrictions likely traceable to the Government, were ill suited to the task of establishing their standing to seek forward-looking relief.
The majority further noted that the available evidence indicated that the platforms continued to enforce their policies against COVID—19 misinformation even as the Federal Government had wound down its own pandemic response measures.
The majority further pointed out that the respondents did not point to any specific instance of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm. They have therefore failed to establish an injury that is sufficiently “concrete and particularized”. Missouri and Louisiana asserted a sovereign interest in hearing from their citizens on social media, but they did not identify any specific speakers or topics that they have been unable to hear or follow. Furthermore, it was noted that Missouri and Louisiana do not have third-party standing as parens patriae to bring an action against the Federal Government on behalf of their citizens who have faced social-media restrictions.
Dissenting Opinion: The dissent was delivered by Samuel Alito, J.**, which was joined by Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, JJ.
Taking note of the background of the dispute, the dissenting Judges noted that Facebook began censoring COVID—19-related misinformation before officials from the White House and the Surgeon General’s Office got involved. The Judges opined that this fact made it difficult to untangle Government-caused censorship from censorship that Facebook might have undertaken anyway.
The Judges further observed beyond any serious dispute that the top-ranking White House officials and the Surgeon General possessed the authority to exert enormous coercive pressure on social media platforms. With reference to Facebook, it was pointed out that its responses to the officials’ persistent inquiries, criticisms, and threats revealed that the platform perceived the statements as something more than mere recommendations. Time and time again, Facebook responded to an angry White House with a promise to do better in the future. “The implication is that Facebook must have chosen to undertake all of its anti-misinformation efforts entirely of its own accord. That is bad logic, and in any event, the record shows otherwise (…) Internal Facebook emails paint a clear picture of subservience”.
It was observed 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 (Alito, J.) respectfully dissent”.
[Vivek H. Murthy v. Missouri, No. 23—411, decided on 26-06-2024]
*Judgment delivered by Justice Amy Coney Barrett
**Dissenting opinion by Justice Samuel Alito
The post appeared first on .