Amy Coney Barrett Goes Against Conservative Supreme Court Justices

Amy Coney Barrett Clarence Thomas on Collision

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the Joe Biden administration against her fellow conservative justices in a dispute with Republican-led states over the the federal government's communications with social media companies about controversial content on their platforms.

In a 6-3 ruling on Murthy v. Missouri in which Barrett wrote the opinion, the Supreme Court said states and individual plaintiffs don't have standing to sue administration officials over social media platforms' content moderation decisions regarding COVID-19 misinformation.

Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which he was joined by Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

Louisiana, Missouri and other parties in the case had argued that the Biden administration had tried to prevent conservative views from being seen on social media.

In her decision for the majority, Coney Barrett wrote that the plaintiffs had neither the right nor the legal standing to sue.

The plaintiffs had argued that the White House had pressured social media companies to dampen conservative commentary.

The Biden administration argued before the court that it should have the freedom to talk openly to social media companies about hate speech, public health, election integrity and other areas where the promotion of false news must be combatted.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana had earlier ruled that the government had likely put too much pressure on social media companies to change content.

The Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, had petitioned the Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn the Louisiana decision in an effort to dampen fake news about Covid 19 vaccines and other topics.

Outlining the facts of the case on Wednesday, Coney Barrett noted: "During the 2020 election season and the COVID–19 pandemic, social-media platforms frequently removed, demoted, or fact checked posts containing allegedly false or misleading information."

"At the same time, federal officials, concerned about the spread of 'misinformation' on social media, communicated extensively with the platforms about their content-moderation efforts."

"The plaintiffs, two States and five social-media users, sued dozens of Executive Branch officials and agencies, alleging that they pressured the platforms to suppress protected speech in violation of the First Amendment."

"The Fifth Circuit agreed, concluding that the officials' communications rendered them responsible for the private platforms' moderation decisions. It then affirmed a sweeping preliminary injunction."

Coney Barrett wrote that the Fifth Circuit "was wrong to do so."

"To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a Government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek," she added.

She also outlined the importance of tackling fake news on social media.

"For years, the platforms have targeted speech they judge to be false or misleading."

"For instance, in 2016, Facebook began fact checking and demoting posts containing misleading claims about elections. Since 2018, Facebook has removed health-related misinformation, including false claims about a measles outbreak in Samoa and the polio vaccine in Pakistan."

"Likewise, in 2019, YouTube announced that it would 'demonetize' channels that promote anti-vaccine messages. In 2020, with the outbreak of COVID–19, the platforms announced that they would enforce their policies against users who post false or misleading content about the pandemic."

"As early as January 2020, Facebook deleted posts it deemed false regarding 'cures', 'treatments', and the effect of 'physical distancing,'" she wrote.

Start your unlimited Newsweek trial