Supreme Court rules Biden administration can continue censoring conservative social media posts in major free speech case
The Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration can keep censoring social media posts on topics like COVID-19 and election security.
In the critical First Amendment case, Republican-led states had argued that the Biden administration illegally and unconstitutionally worked with social media companies to squash conservative views on their platforms during the COVID pandemic.
They wanted limits placed on how far the federal government can go to combat social media posts on 'controversial topics' – specifically when the Democrat administration appears to unfairly censors right-leaning voices.
The GOP states had argued that White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. cybersecurity agency are among those who applied 'unrelenting pressure' to coerce changes in online content on social media platforms.
However, the justices on Wednesday threw out lower-court rulings that favored Republican-led Louisiana, Missouri and other parties.
The Supreme Court Justices handed down the decision on social media censorship on Wednesday, June 26 in a blow to Republican-led states
Former Missouri Attorney General - and now-Senator Eric Schmitt - reacted to the case saying it 'wasn't the outcome we were hoping for,' but it is a 'huge win' because it 'exposed nearly every part of the Biden Administration’s vast ‘censorship enterprise.’'
But the justices appeared broadly skeptical of those 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 those concerns when it noted that the government would lose its ability to communicate with the social media companies about antisemitic and anti-Muslim posts, as well as on issues of national security, public health and election integrity.
The Supreme Court had earlier acted to keep the lower-court rulings on hold. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas would have allowed the restrictions on government contacts with the platforms to go into effect.
Free speech advocates had urged the court to use the case to draw an appropriate line between the government's acceptable use of the bully pulpit and coercive threats to free speech.
A panel of three judges on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled earlier that the Biden administration had probably brought unconstitutional pressure on the media platforms.
The appellate panel said officials cannot attempt to 'coerce or significantly encourage' changes in online content.
The panel had previously narrowed a more sweeping order from a federal judge, who wanted to include even more government officials and prohibit mere encouragement of content changes.
The case, Murthy v. Missouri, was among several before the court this term that affect social media companies in the context of free speech.
In February, the court heard arguments on Florida and Texas laws that prohibit large social media companies from taking down content due to the nature of views expressed in the posts.
And in March, the justices laid out standards for when public officials can block their social media followers.
The cases over state laws and the one that was decided Wednesday are variations on the same theme, complaints that the platforms are censoring conservative viewpoints.
