Supreme Court rejects claim White House limited free speech on social media

The Supreme Court has dismissed a case that claimed the Biden administration unlawfully pressured social media platforms to remove posts about Covid-19 and the 2020 election, which were considered misinformation. The case was brought by five social media users and the attorneys general from Louisiana and Missouri. They argued that the Biden administration's actions violated the constitutional right to free speech. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court determined that the plaintiffs did not have the legal standing to sue. The three most conservative justices opposed the decision, with Justice Samuel Alito writing a 34-page dissent. He argued that this could be one of the most significant free speech cases to reach the court in years. Although the ruling focused on a technical issue rather than the core of the case, it was a victory for President Joe Biden. The decision overturned an injunction that limited communications between social media companies and government officials. This means that the FBI and other agencies can now flag posts and accounts to platforms that they believe pose a threat to national security. The plaintiffs contended that federal officials pressured or 'jawboned' the companies into suppressing speech that the government disagreed with, particularly regarding the coronavirus pandemic. They pointed to instances where platforms pushed down posts or suspended accounts after communicating with the White House. The Biden administration countered that it was persuading social media platforms to limit problematic content, including lies and misleading claims, which the surgeon general had warned could put lives at risk. They also noted that many of the flagged posts violated the companies' internal policies. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, stated that the plaintiffs largely failed to link their past social media restrictions to the government's communications with the platforms. She was joined by the three liberal justices, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In his dissent, Justice Alito detailed emails, press conferences, and past decisions, describing the 'jawboning' as 'blatantly unconstitutional. ' He argued that the ruling permits a successful campaign of coercion to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what people say, hear, and think. By rejecting the case, the court was sending a message that a sophisticated coercive campaign might succeed. Prior to this decision, a federal district judge in Louisiana had sided with the social media users, agreeing that White House officials violated the right to free speech. A federal appeals court later upheld that ruling but narrowed its scope to include fewer federal officials. This is the second case the Supreme Court has dismissed due to a lack of standing. It also rejected a case involving the abortion drug mifepristone for the same reason.