Supreme Court rules on Biden administration in social media dispute with conservative states

BY MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security.

In a 6-3 vote, the justices rejected lower court rulings that favored Louisiana, Missouri and others in their claims that federal officials leaned on social media platforms to unconstitutionally suppress conservative views.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court that the states and other parties did not have the legal right or authority to file a lawsuit. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The decision should not impact the typical social media user or their posts.

The case is one of several brought before the court this term affecting social media companies in the context of freedom of expression. In February, the court heard arguments over Republican-passed laws in Florida and Texas that ban major social media companies from removing posts because of the views they express. In March, the court set standards for when government officials can block their followers on social media.

The state law cases and the one decided Wednesday are variations on the same theme, complaints that the platforms are censoring conservative views.

The states had argued that communications officials from the White House, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. Cyber ​​Security Agency were among those who exerted “relentless pressure” to force changes to online content on social media platforms.

The justices generally seemed skeptical of these claims during arguments in March, and several worried that common interactions between government officials and the platforms could be affected by a ruling for the states.

The Biden administration underscored these concerns when it noted that the government would lose its ability to communicate with social media companies on anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim messages, as well as on issues of national security, public health and election integrity.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the court reached the right outcome because “it ensures that the Biden administration can continue our important work with technology companies to protect the safety and security of the American people, after years of extreme and baseless Republican attacks. about government officials doing critical work to keep Americans safe.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill called the decision “unfortunate and disappointing.” The court majority, Murrill said in a statement, “gives a free pass to the federal government to threaten tech platforms with censorship and suppression of speech that is unquestionably protected by the First Amendment. The majority rejects the worst government coercion program in history.”

In their decision on Wednesday, the judges did not address the content of the states’ claims or the government’s response.

“We start – and end – with standing,” Barrett wrote. “At this stage, neither the individual nor the plaintiffs in the state have acquired the standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. We are therefore not authorized to assess the merits of the dispute.”

In his dissent, Alito wrote that the states have amply demonstrated their right to sue. “For months, high-ranking government officials have relentlessly pressured Facebook to suppress Americans’ freedom of expression. Because the court improperly declines to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent,” he wrote on behalf of the three minority justices.

Jen Easterly, director of the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, said she was pleased with the decision and reiterated that the agency “does not and has never censored speech.”

“Every day, the men and women of CISA carry out the agency’s mission to reduce risks to America’s critical infrastructure in a way that protects America’s freedom of speech, civil rights, civil liberties and privacy,” Easterly said in a statement .

Some free speech advocates were happy with the outcome, but also lamented how little guidance the court provided.

“The platforms are attractive targets for official pressure, which is why it is critical that the Supreme Court clarify the line between permissible efforts to persuade and impermissible efforts to coerce,” said Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. “This guidance would have been especially valuable in the months leading up to the election.”

Nina Jankowicz was named in the original lawsuit after she was appointed in 2022 to lead a new board within the Department of Homeland Security to tackle disinformation. The board was disbanded within weeks amid conspiracy theories and criticism from Republicans and conservative activists who saw the effort as a political tool to regulate free speech.

Jankowicz, an expert on disinformation, said the Supreme Court did what she expected. But she said the damage from the lawsuit cannot be easily resolved.

“Unfortunately, there is an entire class of people who now believe that the government, in collaboration with independent researchers, is censoring a segment of the American population,” she said. “I don’t think this will go away anytime soon.”

The court’s ruling comes as many social media companies have removed guardrails against hate and misinformation.

The social media platform It also dismantled teams that once fought disinformation on the platform, leaving the user community to self-moderate.

Experts say the downsizing of such teams, a development many blame on political pressure, could make election-related disinformation on social media worse in 2024 than in 2020.

Meanwhile, Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, has moved away from emphasizing news and political content on its platforms after years of being accused of mishandling misinformation and contributing to political polarization.

A three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled that the government had likely exerted unconstitutional pressure on the media platforms. The appeals panel said officials cannot attempt to “compel or substantially encourage” changes to online content.

The decision was the sixth this season in which the court overruled rulings by the 5th Circuit, one of the nation’s most conservative appeals courts. Last week, the court upheld a gun restriction aimed at protecting victims of domestic violence, overturning a 5th Circuit panel.

Earlier in June, the court unanimously ruled that anti-abortion doctors lack standing to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s decisions to expand access to the abortion drug mifepristone.

The case is Murthy v. Missouri, 23-411.