BREAKING: Supreme Court Allows Government To Pressure Social Media To Censor 'Disinformation'

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court handed down a new decision related to government influence in social media moderation and ultimately decided that the plaintiffs did not have standing in Murthy v. Missouri. The decision will allow the White House, the FBI, and other executive agencies to request that social media companies take down what the government deems to be  "misinformation" and "disinformation."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion that split 6-3 with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in the majority. The dissent, written by Justice Samuel Alito, was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

"During the 2020 election season and the COVID-19 pandemic, social-media platforms frequently removed, demoted, or fact-checked posts containing allegedly false or misleading information," Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the court's opinion. "At the same time, federal officials, concerned about the spread of 'misinformation' on social media, communicated extensively with the latforms about their content-moderation efforts."

"The plaintiffs, two States, and five social-media users sued dozens of Executive Branch officials and agencies, alleging that they pressured the platforms to suppress protected speech in violation of the First Amendment. The Fifth Circuit agreed, concluding that the officials' communications rendered them responsible for the private platforms' moderation decisions. It then affirmed a sweeping preliminary injunction," the court's opinion continues. "The Fifth Circuit was wrong to do so. To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a Government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek. Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction."

The court's ruling will kick the issue of government-pressured social media censorship down the road and allow the practice to continue after it was blocked by the Fifth Circuit. The Missouri and Louisiana attorney generals brought the case, arguing that the government was engaged in a pressure campaign against social media companies to force them to remove posts that the administration disagreed with.

This is a developing story and will be updated accordingly.

You can follow Sterling on X/Twitter here.