Murthy v. Missouri Revisions: 6/27/24

Background

Two States (Missouri and Louisiana) and five social‑media users sued dozens of federal officials and agencies after platforms applied misinformation rules during the COVID‑19 pandemic and the 2020 election. Plaintiffs alleged White House staff, the Surgeon General, the CDC, the FBI, and CISA pressured platforms like Facebook to remove, demote, or flag posts. A district court issued a broad injunction and the Fifth Circuit partly affirmed.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court focused on Article III standing (the rule that plaintiffs must show a real, particular injury tied to a defendant and fixable by a court order). Because the plaintiffs sought only an injunction against government officials—not the platforms directly—the Court required proof that a named federal defendant would likely cause a platform to censor a plaintiff again. The Court found insufficient, specific evidence linking most plaintiffs’ past restrictions to the defendants, and it stressed that platforms often acted on independent incentives. The Court noted one plaintiff, a healthcare activist, had the strongest showing but still failed to prove a substantial and likely future risk tied to the named officials.

Real world impact

Because the Court dismissed the case for lack of standing, the broad injunction against federal officials was reversed and stayed. The decision leaves platforms free to enforce moderation rules and makes it harder for states and individual users to obtain court orders stopping government communications with platforms without direct, topic‑and‑actor specific proof. Future challenges will require clearer links between a particular official’s conduct and a particular moderation action.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the record shows repeated, high‑level pressure on Facebook that altered company behavior and harmed users; it would have found standing and reached the free‑speech question.