SCOTUS Rejects Conservative Challenge To White House Contact w/Social Media Companies

[Webster]

(The Guardian) Supreme court rejects conservative challenge to Biden administration's contacts with social media companies
In their first decision of the day, the supreme court’s liberals and some conservatives banded together to reject a challenge, brought by Republican-led states, to efforts by the Biden administration to work with social media companies in combatting misinformation over the coronavirus.

---

Much as with the conservative attempt to roll back the availability of abortion medication mifepristone, the decision in Murthy v Missouri over the Biden administration’s contacts with social media firms hinged on whether the justices believed the plaintiffs had standing to sue.

Writing for the majority, conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett found that they did not: 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 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.

 

[Webster]

(The Guardian) Jim Jordan, the rightwing Republican chair of the House judiciary committee, has been a prominent voice alleging that the Biden administration is censoring conservatives on social media.

The supreme court did not exactly weigh in on that claim, but did find that the Republican-led states who challenged the White House’s contacts with social media companies in Murthy v Missouri did not have standing to sue. Here’s what Jordan, who also chairs the subcommittee on the “weaponization of government”, had to say about that: The First Amendment is first for a reason, and the freedom of expression should be protected from any infringement by the government. Our country benefits when ideas can be tested and debated fairly on their merits, whether online or in the halls of Congress. The Committee and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government have uncovered how and the extent to which the Biden Administration engaged in a censorship campaign in violation of the First Amendment. While we respectfully disagree with the Court’s decision, our investigation has shown the need for legislative reforms, such as the Censorship Accountability Act, to better protect Americans harmed by the unconstitutional censorship-industrial complex. Our important work will continue.