The Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration on Wednesday in a debate over whether it was a violation of the First Amendment for the federal government to monitor what it considers misinformation on social media on topics including the 2020 election results and COVID-19. vaccines.
The 6-3 vote reversed a Fifth Circuit Court decision that previously ruled in favor of Republican-led states that had sued on the grounds that such mitigation violated the First Amendment. The lower court ruled that government officials were responsible for content moderation decisions on social media platforms.
The Supreme Court ruled that there was no evidence that the White House used intimidation or coercive tactics to remove the content from platforms, and therefore it did not violate the First Amendment. This ruling now sets the precedent for tech companies to serve the public interest.
Read the Supreme Court’s ruling here:
🧑⚖️ What the judges said
Judge Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion that the Biden administration did not violate the First Amendment by asking social media platforms to remove disinformation, rejecting the Fifth Circuit Court’s claim that the government exerted unconstitutional pressure on the platforms exerted.
“The Fifth Circuit got it wrong,” Barrett wrote. “Plaintiffs must demonstrate that they face a substantial risk of suffering harm in the near future that is traceable to a government defendant and remediable by the injunction they seek. Since no plaintiff has borne that burden, no one has the right to seek preliminary injunction. order.”
Justice Samuel Alito filed the dissent, which Justices Clarence Thomas and Justices Clarence Thomas filed Neil Gorsuch affiliated, write that there are underlying problems with freedom of expression because government officials can be involved in the moderation of content and that there are underlying problems with freedom of expression
📱 This social media case is one of several the Supreme Court has heard this term
The case was the fifth argument on freedom of speech and technology that the Supreme Court has heard since October.
The court’s ruling could benefit current government efforts to combat disinformation on social media. This is especially true in an election year, as three in ten Americans reportedly get their news from social media.
The justices have yet to decide another social media case: NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, which have been combined into one hearing. Both the NetChoice decision and this decision will help shape standards for what free speech looks like in the digital age.
⬅️ How we got here
Two Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, along with several other social media users, alleged that federal officials “coordinated and conspired” with social media platforms to censor speakers, viewpoints and content with which they disagreed.
Louisiana-based federal Judge Terry Doughty and the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals both agreed that Biden officials violated the First Amendment.
In October 2023, the Supreme Court blocked the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court’s ruling, with conservative Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissenting from the majority’s decision to block the ruling, claiming that the situation used to be an example of how the government censors private speech.
In the majority, however, several justices from both liberal and conservative sides questioned how prosecutors could prove that taking down the posts harmed or silenced anyone. They also expressed concern that there was no evidence that officials threatened social media companies if they did not cooperate.
