The U.S. Supreme Court has dismissed claims that various federal agencies violated the First Amendment by pressuring Big Tech companies to suppress lawful speech in a ruling that will likely make it easier for future administrations to escape judicial scrutiny of subtle, indirect yet hugely potent forms of censorship.
In the decision handed down earlier this week in the Murthy v. Missouri case, the nine-judge panel sidestepped ruling on the constitutionality of the Government’s actions, choosing instead to focus on ‘standing’, which broadly refers to a litigant’s right to have a court rule upon the merits of a particular claim. In the U.S. context, standing ultimately depends on the litigant establishing that they have a genuine stake in the outcome of the case because they have personally suffered (or will imminently suffer) a concrete injury traceable to the allegedly lawful actions of the opposing party.
Missouri, Louisiana and other Republican-led states acted as plaintiffs in the case, arguing that the Biden administration “suppressed conservative-leaning free speech” on the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of the 2020 presidential election; on COVID-19 issues, including the disease’s origin, masks, lockdowns, vaccines and vaccine mandates; on election integrity in the 2020 presidential election; on the security of voting by mail; on the economy; and on Joe Biden himself.
The GOP states had argued that White House Communications Agency, the U.S. Surgeon General, the FBI and NSA Cybersecurity are among those who applied “unrelenting pressure” on social media companies to remove perfectly legal content from their platforms.
The plaintiffs also wanted limits placed on how far the federal government can go to try to get social media posts on “controversial topics” removed – specifically when the Democrat administration appears, in their view, to target Right-leaning voices.
State Attorneys General Andrew Bailey and Liz Murrill represented Missouri and Louisiana, respectively. Other plaintiffs include doctors who spoke out against the COVID-19 mandates, such as Martin Kulldorff, Jay Bhattacharya and Aaron Kheriaty; Gateway Pundit founder Jim Hoft; and Jill Hines, an anti-lockdown advocate and co-director of Health Freedom Louisiana.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that because federal agencies pressured social media firms into censoring some of their social media posts, they therefore automatically have ‘standing’ – or, in the words of the Court, “that they are able to bring the case due to facing substantial risk of future injury traceable to the government defendants and likely to be redressed by an injunction against them”.
The context here is that last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit accepted that the plaintiffs had ‘standing’ and ruled in their favour on some of their claims, having found extensive evidence that federal agencies had threatened various social media companies if they refused their takedown requests.
As the Fifth Circuit decision in the case put it:
On multiple occasions, the officials coerced the platforms into direct action via urgent, uncompromising demands to moderate content… And, more importantly, the officials threatened – both expressly and implicitly – to retaliate against inaction. Officials ruled out the prospect of legal reforms and enforcement actions while subtly insinuating it would be in the platforms’ best interests to comply. As one official put it, ‘removing bad information’ is “one of the easy, low-bar things you guys [can] do to make people like me” – that is, White House officials – “think you’re taking action”.
However, the Supreme Court has now dismissed the idea that the plaintiffs are suffering “continuing, present adverse effects” from their past restrictions, as they must now self-censor on social media”.
“We begin – and end – with standing,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. “At this stage, neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. We therefore lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of the dispute.”
Chief Justice John Roberts joined Barret in the majority opinion, along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined.
According to Justice Barrett, the plaintiffs “cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending”.
“As we explained,” Barrett continued, “the plaintiffs have not shown that they are likely to face a risk of future censorship traceable to the defendants.” As a result, they “fail, by and large, to link their past social-media restrictions and the defendants’ communications with the platforms”.
The plaintiffs were already incentivized to self-censor by the major companies’ pre-existing content moderation policies, she said, adding: “So it is ‘difficult to see how’ the plaintiffs’ self-censorship ‘can be traced to’ the defendants.”
Barrett went on to claim that Facebook and Twitter in particular had imposed some content moderation restrictions even before any attempts to pressure them by the federal Government.
The plaintiffs argued that while that might indeed be the case, additional restrictions had nevertheless been imposed after federal agencies started upping the pressure.
It’s a point amply confirmed by the Twitter Files, which reveal how the process worked: Federal agencies under Biden would have frequent meetings with Big Tech companies, warning about “misinformation” and repeatedly pressuring them to remove or suppress content. Federal agents and politicians would then occasionally insinuate that if the companies didn’t act, the Government would reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, removing legal protections the companies enjoyed.
Last year, the Federalist reported that White House officials “treated internet monopolies like their subordinates” and highlighted one email exchange between White House Digital Director Rob Flaherty and Facebook in which Flaherty sent irate messages demanding to know why the company hadn’t complied with the administration’s requests.
In his dissenting opinion for the Court, Justice Samuel Alito summarises some of the relevant evidence, describing multiple examples of Facebook tightening content moderation policies in response to specific complaints brought by administration officials. Judge Alito also warns that Americans will come to regret the continuation of an unconstitutional censorship regime, adding that if the evidence presented to the lower courts is correct, then Murthy v. Missouri “is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this court in years”.
It’s right that government officials must remain free to criticise speech on social media (and elsewhere) and urge firms to change their policies voluntarily. But at what point does ‘discussion’ becomes ‘persuasion’, and when does ‘persuasion’ tip over into ‘coercion’?
The problem, as law professor Ilya Somin points out in Reason, is that there are “inherent difficulties” in legal cases that depend on distinguishing between threats of coercion and mere voluntary suasion and cooperation.
You don’t have to be a scholar of Ludwig Wittgenstein to see that language is, in this way, complex. Government officials can – and do – make implicit, but clearly understood threats without spelling them out in so many words. Unlike direct government censorship, censorship through indirect coercion usually involves veiled threats and sometimes subtle messages whose meaning depends on context: “That’s a nice little social media platform you’ve got there – be a real shame if the Federal Trade Commission opened an antitrust investigation into it,” etc.
In other words, context matters in myriad ways the Supreme Court’s majority opinion has overlooked.
The obvious risk for the future is that if courts lower down the judicial hierarchy start to insist on similarly strong evidence of explicit threats and a narrow interpretation of who has ‘standing’, government agencies will be able to escape judicial scrutiny of extensive indirect censorship.
That problem is likely to become more severe as agencies figure out the relevant ‘standing’ rules and tailor their threatening communications to firms in ways that exploit them, e.g., not mentioning the authors of the posts they want taken down by name.
After all, why bother demanding a ban on the restriction of certain individuals on X if you can simply demand that social media companies enforce enforce their own rules more aggressively?
Perhaps unsurprisingly, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre has welcomed the ruling. “The Supreme Court’s decision helps ensure the Biden administration can continue our important work with technology companies to protect the safety and security of the American people,” she said.
“Important work”, which, as Twitter Files journalist Matt Taibbi notes wryly, will undoubtedly include White House officials sending emails to companies like X saying things thing: “Wanted to flag the below Tweet and am wondering if we can get moving on having it removed ASAP.”
Dr. Frederick Attenborough is the Free Speech Union’s Communications Officer. You can find him on Substack here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
In the final stages of their grasping attempt to keep control they will make more and more blatant attacks on human liberty. At the same time the grasp will always be weaker than it was before. Like unto a Chinese finger trap where the more they try the weaker they become. The final few months will be nasty and when they leave the building there will be a nasty vacuum. It will take decades just to disentangle and rectify the evil structures that they have created
In fairness to the SC justices, the social media scum where only too happy to censor, the federal government and their agents where pushing at an open door.
I’m not sure they were to be honest, although they are large organisations now with many people, some of whom perhaps were happy to be censors.
But on the whole, companies don’t want to be regulated. Social media companies much prefer the early days when anything went and nobody bothered them about what was on their platforms.
So that the government was coercing social media companies to censor people isn’t refuted. It’s just that the harm previously or ongoing to the plaintiffs is unproven, is that it?
The law is an ass.
I think the issue is that the previous concrete harm is now over and the present and future harm is hypothetical. It’s just about plausible, though Thomas dissented and I rarely disagree with him about anything. The underlying principle is that the court isn’t there to scrutinise the executive or legislative branches, but to resolve ongoing disputes between injured and injuring parties – I think that’s a good principle, perhaps in this case not applied correctly.
It’s already important that the censorship is recognised and recognised to be probably illegal. Maybe the mistake was not to have dealt with this while the censorship was ongoing.
In better news the court ruled here that federal courts have the authority to say what the law is even if “expert” executive agencies disagree with them about what the law says. This overturns precedent whereby the court deferred to “experts”. This has potential implications for example on the leeway a body like the CDC has: 22-451 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (06/28/2024) (supremecourt.gov)
I don’t even know why it comes a surprise that corporate and state power have become fully merged. Surely this is the obvious goal and ultimate endpoint of power centralised to the maximum. And of course it is a mathematical surety that this snowball will accelerate as it fattens. A runaway train doesn’t do it justice because a runaway train gets faster but doesn’t get bigger. We enter a time of the giant snowball where they are defeated internationally and the only option left to them is to cannibalise their own countries in an effort to extract the last drop of blood. And they will do that because they don’t just want 99 percent of your vitality they want all of it.
The similarities between this case and the Finch / Surrey Council case are remarkable but in contradictory ways.
Leggatt in the Finch case managed to extend the law, albeit in only one direction, such that he deliberately flouted the bedrock of law itself and effectively disregarded the reasonableness principle which is that determinations should be based on what would be reasonable to the common man. To infer that a decision to grant a drilling permit such that the potential outputs of the drilling should be taken in to account is proper cart before the horse stuff. Leggatt made the grotesque assumption that any oil derived from drilling would lead to CO2 emissions without even taking in to account the many ways in which crude oil is used. Furthermore, and by extension he obviously was of the opinion that CO2 is in itself bad. His opinion,which many dispute, was used to rewrite law. Perhaps he could advise his scientific credentials.
In the US the majority judges chose to shrink their viewpoint – just because Government agencies have threatened social media companies in the past does not mean they will use similar tactics in the future. And Joe Biden is really a saint sent to save the U. S. A.
Like virtually everything in the world today language is being stretched, manipulated beyond reasonableness and mangled in order to serve political purposes. Wholly symptomatic of this abuse is the now frequent appearance of the word ‘lawfare’ where the law is being routinely abused in search of malevolent ends – the above two cases being prime examples.
On a more vicious front lawfare is being used to shut down dissenting voices eg Tommy Robinson, Reinar Fuellmich, the ex Ambassador to Azerbaijan (?), Alex Bellfield, Julian Assange and certainly others I have missed.
Orwellian times indeed.
I think the Finch case is nuanced. There is not necessarily anything wrong with the notion that a licence for a new product should include understanding and accounting for the known knowns, and how or if it will leave a trail of pollution, such that you might not want it after all. The problem with the Finch case is that the judges on the one hand believe we know more than we do, and on the other have not invoked a reasonable cost benefit criteria for assessing what we do, and finally have not sought to remedy unclear regulation by sending it back to parliament and have instead made a decision themselves – which actually makes everything worse.
” “That’s a nice little social media platform you’ve got there – be a real shame if the Federal Trade Commission opened an antitrust investigation into it,” etc”
That’s not so subtle. What they are doing is bypassing the 1st Amendment onto social media platforms.
We should remember the social media platforms were very willing to do the Administration’s bidding on most things. The radical left seem to be in control in the whole of the swamp and most of the boardrooms of America.
This is outcome of this decision is best discussed by a constitutional legal expert. Do you have one daily sceptic?
Hi Freddie
The American principle of “a man of standing” i.e. someone who is actually inured and so there is a case to answer (which is a principle which may of course apply elsewhere), is a key reason why the American constitution did not save its people from the overreach of covid, and also will not do so over net zero issues – when in principle it should. It can only fight a rear guard action when of course it’s too late and people have been injured.
The principle skews the basis of law making in favour of the meddling progressives.
Surely any new law or action is not required to have a single man of standing. Instead new laws are based on cost benefit analysis based on your average man in the street – not some literal man of standing.
So where the defence of a constitution is concerned the same principle should apply. If the Government or someone were to do such and such it would likely undermine people’s constitutional rights.
Until we get ‘constitutional court systems’ which can actively defend constitutions based on principle rather than waiting for someone to be injured and then them being able to afford to stand up to a government in court, injustice will continue to reign.