The Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration on Wednesday, June, 20, in a dispute with Republican-led states over the extent to which the federal government can intervene in controversial social media posts about subjects like election security and COVID-19. The court ruled 6-3, overturning lower-court decisions that supported Louisiana, Missouri, and other parties in their claims that Democratic administration officials used social media platforms to unconstitutionally stifle conservative viewpoints. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a dissenting opinion for the court, stating that the states and other parties lacked the standing or legal authority to file a lawsuit. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas dissented.
This term, the court is considering multiple cases involving social media corporations and free speech. This particular case is one of them. Arguments about Republican-passed legislation in Florida and Texas, which forbid major social media platforms from removing posts due to the opinions they represent, were heard by the court in February. The court established guidelines in March regarding when public officials can ban their following on social media. Both the state law case and the one resolved on Wednesday center on the same grievance: accusations that the platforms are suppressing conservative opinions.
The states had maintained that individuals who exerted “unrelenting pressure” to force modifications to online information on social media platforms included the surgeon general, the FBI, the White House communications staff, and the U.S. cybersecurity agency. During the March arguments, the judges seemed largely dubious of those allegations, and a few expressed concern that a decision in favor of the states may have an impact on regular encounters between public servants and the platforms.
The Biden administration emphasized these worries when it stated that it would no longer be able to speak with the social media corporations regarding matters of national security, public health, and election integrity, as well as about antisemitic and anti-Muslim posts.
After years of extreme and baseless Republican attacks on public officials who engaged in vital work to keep Americans safe, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the court’s decision was appropriate because it “helps ensure the Biden Administration can continue our important work with technology companies to protect the safety and security of the American people.”
Liz Murrill, the attorney general of Louisiana, described the choice as “unfortunate and disappointing.” “Gives a free pass to the federal government to threaten tech platforms into censorship and suppression of speech that is indisputably protected by the First Amendment,” stated Murrill in a statement in response to the court decision. The worst government coercion program in history is waved off by the majority.
