Jim Jordan Blasted After Supreme Court Ruling
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) attends a press conference following a House Republican conference meeting at the U.S. Capitol on June 12, 2024 in Washington, DC. On June 26, 2024, Jordan was criticized by Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler over a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
Ohio Republican Representative Jim Jordan was blasted this week in response to a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court relating to a dispute with Republican-led states over the federal government's communications with social media companies about controversial content on their platforms.
"As expected, the Supreme Court has issued a stinging rebuke to Jim Jordan and his multimillion-dollar conspiracy theory filed witch hunt," Democratic Representative Jerry Nadler, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement posted to X, formerly Twitter. "The Court has concluded that the social media platforms 'excised their own judgement' with regards to content moderation-which is precisely what we have heard from the dozens of witnesses that Jim Jordan has dragged before this committee.
"I hope that after this humiliating defeat Chairman Jordan and his colleagues will end their failed investigation into the companies, universities, and individuals who have been trying to stop the spread of harmful misinformation and disinformation on social media."
In a 6-3 ruling on Murthy v. Missouri in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, the court said that states and individual plaintiffs don't have standing to sue administration officials over social media platforms' content moderation decisions regarding COVID-19 misinformation.
"The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants' conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the yearslong communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics," Barrett wrote. "This court's standing doctrine prevents us from exercising such general legal oversight of the other branches of government."
As Nadler noted, Jordan, the chairman of the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, previously led an investigation into "the executive branch's coercion and collusion with social media companies to censor speech."
"Through our constitutional oversight, we have uncovered evidence that the Biden Administration directed and coerced Big Tech companies to censor content online and even books," Jordan said in a statement last year after he and other Republicans submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on the case.
In a statement responding to the court's Wednesday decision, Jordan said: "The First Amendment is first for a reason, and the freedom of expression should be protected from any infringement by the government. Our country benefits when ideas can be tested and debated fairly on their merits, whether online or in the halls of Congress. The Committee and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government have uncovered how and the extent to which the Biden Administration engaged in a censorship campaign in violation of the First Amendment.
"While we respectfully disagree with the Court's decision, our investigation has shown the need for legislative reforms, such as the Censorship Accountability Act, to better protect Americans harmed by the unconstitutional censorship-industrial complex. Our important work will continue."
Newsweek reached out to Jordan's office via email for comment.
Start your unlimited Newsweek trial