WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration on Wednesday in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to crack down on controversial social media posts on issues such as COVID-19 and election security.
By a 6-3 vote, the justices overturned lower court rulings favoring Louisiana, Missouri and other parties that had alleged that Democratic officials used social media to exert pressure to unconstitutionally suppress conservative viewpoints.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court that the states and other parties had neither the right nor the standing to sue. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented.
The decision should not impact typical social media users or their posts.
The case is one of several before the court this legislative session involving social media companies in the context of free speech. In February, the court heard arguments over Republican-passed laws in Florida and Texas that prohibit major social media companies from removing posts based on the views expressed in them. In March, the court set standards under which public officials can block their social media followers.
The cases involving state law and the case decided Wednesday are variations on the same theme: complaints that the platforms censor conservative viewpoints.
The states had argued that White House communications officials, the Department of Health and Human Services, the FBI and the U.S. Cybersecurity Agency were among those exerting “relentless pressure” to force changes to online content on social media platforms.
At their hearings in March, the judges were largely skeptical of these allegations, and some of them feared that a ruling in favor of the states could impact the usual dealings between government officials and the platforms.
The Biden administration underscored these concerns when it noted that the government would lose its ability to communicate with social media companies about anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic posts, as well as issues of national security, public health and election integrity.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the court reached the right conclusion because “it helps ensure that the Biden administration can continue its important work with technology companies to keep the American people safe, after years of extreme and unfounded Republican attacks on public officials who have done important work to keep Americans safe.”
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill called the decision “regrettable and disappointing.” The court majority, Murrill said in a statement, “gives the federal government free rein to threaten technology platforms and compel them to engage in censorship and suppression of speech, which is undeniably protected by the First Amendment. The majority waves its hand at the worst government coercion program in history.”
In their decision on Wednesday, the judges did not address the substance of the states’ claims or the government’s response.
“We begin – and end – with standing,” Barrett wrote. “At this time, neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have demonstrated standing to seek a preliminary injunction against any of the defendants. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to resolve the issue.”
In his dissent, Alito wrote that the states had sufficiently demonstrated their right to sue. “For months, senior government officials have exerted relentless pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech. Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent,” he wrote for the three justices in the minority.
Some free speech advocates praised the outcome but complained that the court offered little guidance.
“The platforms are attractive targets for official pressure, and that’s why it’s critical that the Supreme Court clarify the line between permissible attempts at persuasion and impermissible attempts at coercion,” said Alex Abdo, litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute. “This guidance would have been especially valuable in the months leading up to the election.”
The Supreme Court had previously decided to put the lower courts’ rulings on hold. Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas had allowed the restrictions on government contacts with the platforms to come into force.
Free speech advocates had urged the court to apply the case to draw a clear line between acceptable abuse of government power and threats to free speech posed by coercive measures.
A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans had previously ruled that the Biden administration likely exerted unconstitutional pressure on the media platforms. The appeals panel said officials must not attempt to “coerce or substantially encourage” changes to online content. The panel had previously constrained a broader order by a federal judge that sought to include even more government officials and prohibit the mere encouragement of content changes.
It was the sixth decision this term in which the court overturned rulings from the 5th Circuit, one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country. Last week, the court upheld a gun ban designed to protect victims of domestic violence, overturning a decision by a 5th Circuit panel.
At the beginning of June, the court unanimously ruled that anti-abortion activists were not entitled to challenge decisions by the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to facilitate access to the abortifacient mifepristone.
The case is Murthy v. Missouri, 23-411.
___
Follow AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court
