Supreme Court backs Biden administration in social media case

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with/ruled against the Biden administration in an important social media case. Mark Wilson/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Card ID: 5003970

Version 1: Murthy wins the case on the merits

Headline: Supreme Court rules in favor of Biden administration in social media coordination case

In a major victory for the Biden Administration, the U.S. Supreme Court on ___day reversed a lower-court ruling that had placed significant restrictions on the ability of government officials to communicate with social media companies about content-moderation policies.

By a vote of [7-to-2], the Court ruled that government officials do not violate the First Amendment by encouraging social media platforms to remove posts containing “misinformation.” Writing for the court majority, Justice X said that government officials have the right to persuade???? and that in the absence of true coercion, social media companies’ content-moderation policies are wholly private matters.

Writing for the majority, Justice X emphasized [the long-standing importance of the executive branch’s “bully pulpit,” allowing government officials to speak out and “influence” or “persuade” public discourse without overstepping constitutional boundaries.]

Dissenting were Justices (Alito and Thomas??), who argued that the government’s actions rose to the level of unconstitutional coercion by pressuring private companies to moderate content in ways they would not have otherwise chosen??]

The case arose from the Biden administration’s efforts to address the spread of false information surrounding COVID-19 vaccines, foreign interference in elections, and much more. Missouri and Louisiana, along with several individuals, argued that outreach by U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, the FBI, the White House, and a key cybersecurity agency, amounted to coercing social media platforms into censoring content. On __day, the Supreme Court disagreed.

___

Version 2: Murthy wins the case on standing grounds

Headline: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Biden Administration in Social Media Coordination Case

In a major victory for the Biden administration, the U.S. Supreme Court on ___day reversed a lower-court ruling that had placed significant restrictions on government officials’ ability to communicate with social media companies regarding their content-moderation policies. The court did not decide the question of what precisely constitutes permissible contacts between executive branch officials and social media companies. Rather, by a vote of __ to ___ the court ruled that those challenging the government’s interaction with social media companies lacked legal standing to sue (because there was insufficient evidence to show that Biden administration officials had improperly influenced or coerced the social media companies)

Writing for the majority, Justice X  said that the plaintiffs had failed to make the case that the companies’ actions could be traced to pressure from the Biden Administration.

[insert money quotes]

The case arose from the Biden administration’s efforts to address the spread of false information surrounding COVID-19 vaccines, foreign interference in elections, and much more. Missouri and Louisiana, along with several individuals, argued that outreach by U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, the FBI, the White House, and a key cybersecurity agency, amounted to coercing social media platforms into censoring content. On __day, the Supreme Court disagreed, [noting that the government itself is entitled to persuade Americans and American companies to act in ways that would advance the public interest.

Supporters of the ruling argued that—at least in the interim—__day’s decision preserves the government’s ability to engage with private companies on critical matters of public interest. For instance, they said that a contrary decision risked fueling the spread of voting misinformation, which undermines the ability of citizens to make informed decisions about elections, and proliferates false information about where and when to vote.

Critics, however, warned that the ruling could lead to unchecked government pressure on social media companies and related private entities.

Version 3: Missouri wins the case

Headline: Supreme Court Limits Government Influence on Social Media Content Moderation

In a major blow to the Biden administration, the U.S. Supreme Court on ___day upheld a lower-court ruling that had placed significant restrictions on government officials’ ability to communicate with social media companies regarding content-moderation policies. By a vote of [6-to-3??], the Court ruled that government officials violate the First Amendment when they encouraging social media platforms to combat “misinformation.” The court said such actions “coerce” the companies and transform their private content-filtering decisions into government action.

Writing for the majority, Justice X said…

[insert money quotes here]

The case arose from the Biden administration’s efforts to address the spread of false information surrounding COVID-19 vaccines, foreign interference in election, and much more. Missouri and Louisiana, along with several individuals, argued that outreach by U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, the FBI, and a key cybersecurity agency, had coerced social media platforms into censoring content, thereby violating users’ First Amendment rights. On __day, the Supreme Court agreed.

Dissenting were justices __________?????? They said that the government too has a right to make its views known, and to persuade the public, including social media companies on matters of critical national interest.

Critics of the ruling warned that upholding the lower-court's decision would risk public confusion about where and when to vote, and that it would spread misinformation more generally, undermining the ability of citizens to make informed decisions about elections.

Supporters, however, celebrated the ruling as an important check on the amount of government pressure directed at social media companies and related private entities.