Supreme Court sides with White House in social media censorship case

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled 6-3 that two states and five social media users did not have legal standing for their lawsuit against social media companies or the government for allegedly censoring their speech. The states and users had alleged that during the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 election cycle, the government pressured the companies to censor their speech on the firms’ social media platforms. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed by former President Trump, authored the majority opinion. Justice Samuel Alito authored a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

What exactly did the Court decide? The Court acknowledged that social media companies had censored certain viewpoints on their platforms about the 2020 election and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court also acknowledged that government officials communicated with companies about their content moderation decisions. But the majority ruled that the censorship was not ongoing and therefore the Court did not have an imminent threat to address. The states and individuals had argued that the government and social media companies could censor them again, but the Court found that was not a real and immediate threat.

Did the Court issue any other opinions today? The Court ruled 6-3 that a federal law prohibiting bribery does not prevent public officials from accepting gratuities for past official acts. Previously, the federal statute had been interpreted to prevent public officials from accepting payments either before or after taking an action in their work. The Court ruled that officials who take an action without previously agreeing to receive payment for that action later are not violating federal law. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion that Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor joined.

Dig deeper: Read Steve West’s report in Liberties about the arguments the Court heard on this case.