SCOTUS declines to impose limits on the way the Biden administration may communicate with social media platforms, overturning a lower court's 2023 decision

Reuters 2024-06-27 Andrew Chung

Context & Ripple Effects

The dispute had already moved through an emergency pause of the lower-court restrictions and a Supreme Court hearing in which the justices appeared reluctant to curb government-platform contacts. The decision closes that immediate procedural arc in favor of the administration's ability to continue those communications.

For platforms, the ruling preserves the operating environment that existed while the litigation was stayed, rather than imposing a court-designed boundary on interactions with federal officials.

First-order effects

Biden administration officials are no longer subject to the overturned 2023 lower-court limits on communicating with social-media companies about content.
Social-media platforms may continue receiving and evaluating government requests without the specific contact restrictions contemplated by the lower-court ruling.

Second-order effects

Platform trust-and-safety, legal, and public-policy teams retain discretion to handle government outreach case by case, rather than redesigning processes around a broad judicial prohibition.
Challenges to government engagement with platforms will likely need to be framed more narrowly after the Court's earlier pause of the contact restrictions and its apparent skepticism at argument about broad limits on such outreach.

Third-order effects

The outcome reinforces a model in which content-moderation decisions remain formally with platforms even as government communications remain part of the surrounding information environment.
The dispute illustrates the continuing difficulty of drawing durable legal lines between government persuasion and platform independence; future cases may turn on more specific alleged conduct rather than industry-wide contact bans.

The trend: Government-platform communication is becoming a central legal boundary in the broader contest over how misinformation policy intersects with private content moderation.

Discussion

@alfredo_liberal @alfredo_liberal on threads
Amy Coney Barret refusing to call Twitter X is the most hilarious part of her opinion released this morning.
@CarolineMalaCorbin … Caroline Mala Corbin on mastodon
In Murthy v. Missouri, the Supreme Court dismisses on standing grounds the claim that the US govt coerced social media platforms into removing misinformation — Here's the link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ... That's at least the second major conflict the Court avoided via st…
@danyork@mastodon.social Dan York on mastodon
First decision today is “Murthy v. Missouri” as to whether the Biden administration was okay in communicating with social media platforms. — Court overruled 5th Circuit saying that none of the plaintiffs had standing. — Vote was 6-3 with Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissenting.…
@mmasnick.bsky.social Mike Masnick on bluesky
Okay, my initial quick analysis of the Murthy decision is here. [Article: “In short, the Court recognized this case for what it was: utter fucking nonsense...Still, because the court rejected on standing, it means that it did nothing to actually clarify the standard for determin…
@katestarbird.bsky.social Kate Starbird on bluesky
Very good day for social media moderation and for researchers caught in the crosshairs of a ludicrous accusation.
@brandyzadrozny.bsky.social Brandy Zadrozny on bluesky
Alito argues in the dissent that the federal government's coercive social media censorship campaign was just so sophisticated and its threats so subtle ... it's almost as if there never was a government conspiracy to censor people in the first place. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions…
@vivekgramaswamy Vivek Ramaswamy on x
Very disappointed in the Supreme Court's ruling in Murthy v. Missouri, which effectively says the government can delegate its unconstitutional dirty work to private companies with impunity. This flies in the face of precedent...
@drjbhattacharya Jay Bhattacharya on x
The Supreme Court just ruled in the Murthy v. Missouri case that the Biden Administration can coerce social media companies to censor and shadowban people and posts it doesn't like. Congress will now need to act to enforce the Constitution since the Sup. Ct. won't.
@jess_miers Jess Miers on x
Honestly the funniest part of the Murthy opinion is Alito thinking Facebook is one of the most influential social media platforms [image]
@repjerrynadler Rep. Nadler on x
Today, the Supreme Court issued a stinging rebuke to @Jim_Jordan and his multimillion-dollar conspiracy theory fueled witch hunt. My statement on the decision in Murthy v. Missouri: [image]
@repyvetteclarke Yvette D. Clarke on x
If we allow the unmitigated spread of disinformation on social media, we empower foreign adversaries to manipulate our elections without restraint. I'm pleased to see #SCOTUS' decision in Murthy v. Missouri that centers the truth above bad actors' lies. https://www.cnn.com/...
@jameeljaffer Jameel Jaffer on x
Reaction from @knightcolumbia to SCOTUS decision in Murthy: probably the right outcome on standing, but the Court needs to find an opportunity to provide more guidance about what the government can and can't do in this context. https://knightcolumbia.org/...
@ballmatthew Matthew Ball on x
Supreme Court: Yeah, we're gonna stick with Twitter and Facebook, not X and Meta [image]
@repmtg Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene on x
Only Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch stood for free speech today. The rest of the SCOTUS decided: - social media companies can restrict your speech - the government is allowed to coerce them to do it - you have no right to challenge it..
@repmattgaetz Rep. Matt Gaetz on x
Today's disappointing Supreme Court decision in Murthy v. Missouri, holding that the various states were not harmed by government and Big Tech censorship, is a wake up call to all Americans. Even with “conservative” judges like Amy Coney Barrett, we can't expect any help from th…
@robertkennedyjr Robert F. Kennedy Jr on x
The Supreme Court got it wrong - and has failed to uphold its responsibility to the Constitution by finding no standing in Murthy v. Missouri. My case of Kennedy v. Biden will proceed in the trial court where there is no question that @ChildrensHD and I have standing.
@danielsgoldman Daniel Goldman on x
Last year, @Jim_Jordan created @Weaponization and colluded with GOP state AGs to sue @POTUS for working to stop the spread of social media misinformation. Today, SCOTUS threw out his case. This subcommittee has been a gross abuse of power and a massive waste of time and money.
@fbillmcmorris Billy McMorris on x
Alito mincing no words in what SCOTUS has done with Murthy ruling: “The Court...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” [image]
@jess_miers Jess Miers on x
Today, the Supreme Court announced their opinion in Murthy v. Missouri. This case illustrates the complexities of online content moderation and offers some interesting insight into how the Court might rule on the long-awaited NetChoice & CCIA cases. 🧵 https://www.supremecourt.gov…
@charliekirk11 Charlie Kirk on x
The 6-3 SCOTUS ruling backing the Biden Administration's coercion of social media companies effectively means the government can censor Americans' constitutionally protected speech so long as they outsource it to a third party. Unbelievable. Alito's dissent is spot on. [image]
@ronfilipkowski Ron Filipkowski on x
So, the whole ‘Twitter Files’ hoopla resulted in two clown show hearings with Jim Jordan that resulted in nothing, the main investigative journalist getting blocked by Musk after he hired him, he then quit the platform, now the Supreme Court tossed the lawsuits. Nice work.
@rebeccamkern Rebecca Kern on x
Cool to see my @politico reporting cited in the Supreme Court dissent to Murthy v Missouri decision today - https://www.politico.com/... [image]
@joshsorbe Josh Sorbe on x
Justice Barrett saying “I don't care about your rebrand, Elon” LOLOL [image]
@karaswisher Kara Swisher on x
Correct decision. The GOP has lost the narrative here: Supreme Court allows White House contacts with social media firms https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@willoremus Will Oremus on x
SCOTUS rules in the social media “jawboning” case to re-allow contacts between Biden admin and tech firms, overturning a lower court. Notably, they ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing, rather than deciding on merits. Live blog w/ reactions & analysis: https://www.washingtonpost.…
@ericgeller Eric Geller on x
This win for the Biden administration will likely come as a huge relief to the FBI and CISA, as it dispels a shadow that had gathered over the agencies' work to combat election misinformation. We might see tech companies open back up to this kind of collaboration now.
@mjs_dc Mark Joseph Stern on x
Justice Barrett's opinion has sharp words for both the 5th Circuit and Trump Judge Terry Doughty, who imposed the original “sweeping” injunction. Barrett says many of Doughty's factual findings “unfortunately appear to be clearly erroneous.” https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ... [ima…
@mjs_dc Mark Joseph Stern on x
Here is Barrett listing a bunch of mistakes that Trump Judge Terry Doughty made in his notorious July 4 opinion of last year banning millions of federal employees from “encouraging” social media companies to moderate any content. https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ... [image]
@mjs_dc Mark Joseph Stern on x
Alito dissents, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch. He calls it “one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years” and embraces the lower courts' claim that the Biden administration censored users of social media companies by promoting removal of disinformation.
@frankfigliuzzi1 Frank Figliuzzi on x
This is a win for national security and a loss for adversaries posting disinformation and propaganda
@mjs_dc Mark Joseph Stern on x
The Supreme Court's first decision of the day is Murthy v. Missouri, the social media “jawboning” case. By a 6-3 vote, the court holds that the plaintiffs lack standing. Big win for the Biden administration. Another loss for the 5th Circuit. https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ... [ima…
r/politics r on reddit
Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Biden Administration's Contacts With Social Media Companies
r/kotakuinaction2 r on reddit
Nobody has legal standing to challenge government pressure on social media to censor speech rules US Supreme Court in a 6 to 3 decision.
r/ActiveMeasures r on reddit
Supreme Court allows White House to press social media companies to remove disinformation | CNN Politics
r/AnythingGoesNews r on reddit
Supreme Court allows White House to press social media companies to remove disinformation | CNN Politics
r/USNewsHub r on reddit
Supreme Court allows White House to press social media companies to remove disinformation | CNN Politics
r/law r on reddit
Supreme Court holds that the plaintiffs have no standing in Murthy v. Missouri

Chronicles