Washington — The Supreme Court has granted a temporary pause on a lower court’s order that restricted contact between Biden administration officials and social media companies in response to misinformation online. The court has also agreed to consider the case and determine whether the administration unlawfully suppressed conservative speech on platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and X. This forthcoming ruling will have significant implications for free speech and social media.
In a previous ruling, a federal district judge in Louisiana issued an injunction that prohibited employees at federal agencies and the White House from certain communications with social media companies. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit recently modified this injunction.
The Supreme Court’s order on Friday provides a temporary pause on the injunction while the case is under review. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch expressed disagreement, stating that they would have kept the order in place during the review. Justice Alito voiced concerns that the Court’s action may be viewed as allowing the government to manipulate the presentation of news on dominant online platforms.
The case, known as Murthy v. Missouri, emerged from a lawsuit filed by five social media users and the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, claiming that federal agencies and officials coerced social media companies into suppressing speech in violation of the First Amendment. The lawsuit cited various examples of alleged censorship, including stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop, the origins of COVID-19, COVID-19 mitigation measures, and the integrity of the 2020 election.
The Biden administration argued that it aimed to combat online disinformation by notifying social media companies of potentially harmful content, highlighting the similarities between its actions and those of the previous Trump administration.
The case originated with a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty on July 4. The order prohibited federal officials and agencies from engaging in communications with social media companies regarding content that involved protected free speech. However, the order included exceptions for notifying companies about criminal activity, threats to national security, and foreign attempts to influence elections.
The government appealed the injunction, and the 5th Circuit concluded that officials from the White House, surgeon general’s office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and FBI had engaged in coercion and significant encouragement during their communications with social media companies about certain content. The appeals court narrowed the scope of the injunction but blocked these officials from coercing or significantly encouraging social media companies to remove or suppress protected free speech.
In addition to seeking emergency relief, the Justice Department intends to ask the Supreme Court to take on the case, emphasizing that the court’s initial injunction places unprecedented limits on public officials’ ability to address matters of public concern and encroaches on the separation of powers.
The attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri have urged the Supreme Court to allow the injunction to take effect, arguing that federal officials have engaged in a campaign to silence disfavored viewpoints on social media, stifling free speech.
This case is one of several before the Supreme Court involving the intersection of the First Amendment and online speech. The court will also hear arguments in cases regarding public officials’ actions on social media and the constitutionality of new laws in Texas and Florida that impose regulations on social media companies’ content moderation policies.
As the Supreme Court reviews this case, it will have far-reaching implications for the regulation of speech on social media platforms and the protection of free expression.
