A lawsuit filed by attorneys general in Missouri and Louisiana alleged the federal government pressured social media companies to target conservative speech across a range of topics, from the efficacy of vaccines to the integrity of the 2020 presidential election (Photo Illustration by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected arguments by Missouri and Louisiana that the federal government violated the First Amendment in its efforts to combat false, misleading and dangerous information online.

In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court held that neither the states nor seven individuals who were co-plaintiffs in the case were able to demonstrate any harm or substantial risk that they will suffer an injury in the future.

Therefore, they do not have legal standing to bring a case against the federal government.

Plaintiffs failed to prove that social media platforms acted due to government coercion, Barrett wrote, rather than their own judgment and policies.?In fact, she wrote, social media platforms “began to suppress the plaintiffs’ COVID–19 content before the defendants’ challenged communications started.”

Plaintiffs cannot “manufacture standing,” Barrett wrote, “merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.”

The ruling overturns a lower court decision that concluded officials under Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump unlawfully coerced social media companies to remove deceptive or inaccurate content out of fears it would fuel vaccine hesitancy or upend elections.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who inherited the lawsuit from his predecessor, has called the federal government’s actions “the biggest violation of the First Amendment in our nation’s history.”

But those arguments were greeted with skepticism by the court in March, with justices from across the ideological spectrum punching holes in the lawsuit and raising concerns about the consequences for public safety and national security.

In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the government’s actions in this case were not ” ham-handed censorship” that the court has routinely rejected, but they were coercive and illegal all the same.

“It was blatantly unconstitutional,” he wrote, “and the country may come to regret the court’s failure to say so… If a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by. That is not a message this court should send.”

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill released a statement on social media calling Wednesday’s ruling “unfortunate and disappointing.”

“A majority of the Supreme Court 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,” Murril said. “The majority waves off the worst government coercion scheme in history.”

In an emailed statement, Bailey made no mention of the court’s decision to dismiss the case, instead declaring that his office will continue to pursue evidence of social media censorship by the federal government.

“Missouri is not done,” Bailey said. “We are going back to the district court to obtain more discovery in order to root out Joe Biden’s vast censorship enterprise once and for all.”

The lawsuit was filed in 2022 by Missouri and Louisiana, along with seven people who either were banned from a platform or whose posts were not prominently featured on social media sites such as Facebook, YouTube and X, then known as Twitter.

Among the co-plaintiffs is Jim Hoft, founder of the St. Louis-based right-wing conspiracy website Gateway Pundit. Hoft has built a career on promulgating false conspiracies on a wide range of topics, from the 2018 Parkland school shooting to former President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

His company recently filed for bankruptcy as it faces defamation lawsuits in Missouri and Colorado filed by people who say they faced threats after being vilified by Gateway Pundit in false stories.

During appeals court arguments last year, the attorneys general specifically cited Hoft, claiming that he is “currently subjected to an ongoing campaign by federal officials to target the content on his website.”

Hoft claims claims that Twitter, in December 2020, censored content about the Hunter Biden laptop story at the urging of the federal government. But Barrett wrote that Twitter acted according to its own rules against posting or sharing “privately produced/distributed intimate media of someone without their express consent.”

There is no evidence, Barrett wrote, that Twitter adopted its policy in response to pressure from the federal government.

Benjamin Agui?aga, the solicitor general for the Louisiana attorney general, argued before the court in March that the government has no right to try to persuade social media platforms to violate Americans’ constitutional rights, “and pressuring platforms in back rooms shielded from public view is not using the bully pulpit at all. That is just being a bully.”

Emails obtained as part of the lawsuit, Agui?aga argued, show the government badgered platforms behind closed doors, abused them with profanity and “ominously says that the White House is considering its options… all to get the platforms to censor more speech.”

“Under this onslaught,” he said, “the platforms routinely cave.”

The federal government, represented by Brian Fletcher, principal deputy solicitor general, argued Agui?aga’s accusations simply don’t hold water.

There is no evidence that decisions by social media companies to remove or deprioritize content can be attributed to the government. Instead, Fletcher argued, the companies made their own decisions relying on their own content moderation policies.

There was no coercion or attempted intimidation, Fletcher said, and the best proof is that social media companies “routinely said ‘no’ to the government.”

This story is republished from the Missouri Independent, a sister publication to the Kentucky Lantern and part of the nonprofit States Newsroom network.

Protestors backing a social media case against the U.S. government rallied outside the Supreme Court on Monday, March 18, 2024, as arguments in the case were being heard inside. The lawsuit filed in 2022 by attorneys general in Missouri and Louisiana alleges the federal government colluded with social media companies to suppress the freedom of speech. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court seemed skeptical Monday of a lawsuit alleging the federal government colluded with social media companies to suppress the freedom of speech, with a majority of justices across the ideological spectrum raising issues with the case and its potential consequences.

The Biden administration argued to the court there is no evidence that the government violated the First Amendment in its efforts to combat false, misleading or dangerous information online.

Beyond that, the court should dismiss the litigation because plaintiffs don’t have the right to sue, said Brian Fletcher, principal deputy solicitor general.

Arguments occurred in a packed courtroom, where just outside dozens of protesters held signs accusing the government of infringing on free speech.

The lawsuit was filed in 2022 by two states — Missouri and Louisiana — and five individuals who either were banned from a platform or whose posts were not prominently featured on social media sites such as Facebook, YouTube and X, formerly known as Twitter.

Fletcher argued that the plaintiffs have not shown any evidence that decisions by social media companies to remove or deprioritize content can be attributed to the government. Instead, the companies made their own decisions relying on their own content moderation policies.

There was no coercion or attempted intimidation, Fletcher said, and the best proof of that is that social media companies “routinely said ‘no’ to the government.”

“They didn’t hesitate to do it, and when they said ‘no’ to the government, the government never engaged in any sort of retaliation,” Fletcher said. “Instead, (the federal government) engaged in more speech. Ultimately, the president and the press secretary and the surgeon general took to the bully pulpit. We just don’t think that’s coercion.”

Benjamin Agui?aga, the solicitor general for the Louisiana attorney general, argued that the government has no right to persuade platforms to violate Americans’ constitutional rights, “and pressuring platforms in back rooms shielded from public view is not using the bully pulpit at all. That is just being a bully.”

Emails obtained as part of the lawsuit, Agui?aga contends, show the government badgered platforms behind closed doors, abused them with profanity and “ominously says that the White House is considering its options… all to get the platforms to censor more speech.”

“Under this onslaught,” he said, “the platforms routinely cave.”

Encouragement vs. coercion

Government agencies have routinely encouraged social media companies to restrict harmful or illegal content for years, including posts involving terrorism and human trafficking.

Agui?aga argued that speech involving criminal activity is not protected. But the Biden administration, he said, began to push social media companies in 2021 to restrict misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine.

Content was also targeted that involved election disinformation.

In 2022, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, a court nominee of President Donald Trump, ruled that officials under both President Joe Biden and Trump coerced social media companies to censor content over concerns it would fuel vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic or upend elections.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans prohibited the White House, the Surgeon General’s Office, the FBI, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from having practically any contact with the social media companies. It found that the Biden administration most likely overstepped the First Amendment by urging the major social media platforms to remove misleading or false content.

The Supreme Court placed a temporary stay on the order in October until it decides the case.

Standing and traceability

Another question at the core of Monday’s arguments was whether any harm to the plaintiffs could be, in fact, traced back to the government’s actions or could be remedied by judicial relief.

Justice Elena Kagan asked Agui?aga to highlight “the single piece of evidence that most clearly shows the government was responsible for one of your clients having material taken down.”

“How do you decide that it’s government action as opposed to platform action?” Kagan followed.

Agui?aga pointed to a May 2021 email the Biden administration sent to a social media platform regarding misinformation about COVID-19. Agui?aga argued that evidence shows two months later content from one of the plaintiffs, Jill Hines of Louisiana, was suppressed.

“A lot of things can happen in two months,” Kagan said. “So that decision two months later could have been caused by the government’s email or that government email might have been long since forgotten because there are a thousand other communications that platform employees have had with each other, a thousand other things that platform employees have read in the newspaper.”

“I mean why would we point to one email two months earlier and say it was that email that made all the difference?” Kagan said.

Justices question consequences for public safety, national security

During Monday’s arguments, the justices focused on whether encouragement by federal officials amounted to illegal coercion, rather than merely informing or persuading social media companies.

“There are lots of contexts where government officials can persuade private parties to do things the officials couldn’t do directly,” Fletcher argued when Justice Clarence Thomas questioned him about coercion versus censorship.

“For example, recently after the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, a number of public officials called on colleges and universities to do more about antisemitic hate speech on campus,” Fletcher said.

An ideologically diverse majority of justices raised concerns about the potential consequences of the litigation for things like public safety and national security.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether the government violates the First Amendment when it requests the removal of factually inaccurate posts. He suggested there could be national security concerns if false information was posted online about troops.

Kavanaugh also asked how the federal government’s communications with social media companies were any different than when news organizations are warned that a story they are about to publish could affect national security.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett continued along that line of questions, asking whether the FBI would still be able to warn social media platforms if an individual had been doxxed in a way that might put them at risk.

Agui?aga countered that he is a free speech purist but in that circumstance, the government would be allowed to issue warnings to social media companies about content.

But when speech is protected, the government has no right to intervene to push for it to be censored, he said.

“When the government is identifying a specific viewpoint and specific content that it wishes to wholly eliminate from public discourse, that’s when the First Amendment problem arises,” he said, later adding that the government has lots of tools at its disposal to combat misinformation.

“Censorship,” he said, “has never been the default remedy for a perceived First Amendment violation.”

That argument didn’t move Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“You have to admit that there are certain circumstances,” she said, “in which the government can provide information and encourage the platforms to take it down.”

The most scathing criticism of the day came from Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

“I have such a problem with your brief, counselor,” Sotomayor said to Agui?aga. “You omit information that changes the context of some of your claims. You attribute things to people who it didn’t happen to. I don’t know what to make of all this.”

Agui?aga apologized if “any aspect of our brief was not as forthcoming as it should have been.”

Justice Samuel Alito, who sat back and rocked his chair with his hands behind his head, seemed most sympathetic to the plaintiffs’ case, reframing the discussion as Agui?aga was facing a series of difficult questions.

“Coercion doesn’t only apply when the government says ‘do this, and if you don’t do this, there are going to be legal consequences,’” Alito said, adding: “It’s a more flexible standard and… you have to take into account the whole course of the relationship.”

In his rebuttal, Fletcher compared the Biden administration’s communications with social media companies and public comments about misinformation to President George W. Bush’s public condemnation of pornography and President Ronald Reagan’s criticism of media influence of drugs and violence.

A ruling on the case is not expected for several months.

Plaintiff reaction

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said afterward he believes the Supreme Court justices “will make the right decision here.”

“Ultimately that (decision) will continue to build a wall of separation between tech and state using this lawsuit. The court will affirm the district court injunction and we’re excited to get back to the district court level,” Bailey told reporters on the plaza in front of the Supreme Court after arguments concluded.

When asked for his reaction to the justices’ skepticism of Agui?aga’s argument of government coercion, Bailey said “the evidence clearly establishes coercion.”

Bailey argued that evidence gathered by Missouri, Louisiana and the individual plaintiffs reveals the Biden administration threatened reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which currently shields social media companies from liability for content published on their platforms.

“Those are direct explicit threats against the big tech social media giants,” he said.

The Department of Justice declined to comment on the ongoing litigation.

This story has been updated.

Jason Hancock reported from Columbia, Mo. Ashley Murray reported from Washington, D.C.

A lawsuit filed by attorneys general in Missouri and Louisiana alleges the federal government pressured social media companies to target conservative speech across a range of topics, from the efficacy of vaccines to the integrity of the 2020 presidential election (Photo Illustration by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images).

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday morning in a potentially landmark case involving the federal government’s efforts to encourage social media companies to remove misinformation from their platforms.

The lawsuit was filed in 2022 by attorneys general in Missouri and Louisiana. It alleges the federal government colluded with social media companies such as Twitter, now called X, and Facebook to suppress the freedom of speech.

The government specifically targeted conservative speech, the attorneys general contend, across a range of topics — from the efficacy of vaccines to the integrity of the 2020 presidential election.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who inherited the lawsuit from his predecessor, called the federal government’s actions “the biggest violation of the First Amendment in our nation’s history.

“We’re fighting to build a wall of separation between tech and state to preserve our First Amendment right to free, fair and open debate,” Bailey said in an emailed statement.

In a statement Thursday, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said the case has uncovered 20,000 pages of documents that reveal an “extensive censorship campaign” on the part of President Joe Biden.

“George Orwell wrote ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ as a warning against tyranny,” Murrill said. “He never intended it to be used as a how-to guide by the federal government.”

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, defending the Biden administration in the lawsuit, said in a filing asking the Supreme Court to take the case that the government was entitled to express its views and persuade others to take action.

“A central dimension of presidential power,” she wrote, “is the use of the office’s bully pulpit to seek to persuade Americans — and American companies — to act in ways that the president believes would advance the public interest.”

Social media companies are private entities, Prelogar wrote, that made independent decisions about what to remove.

Monday’s case will be argued by Benjamin Agui?aga, the solicitor general for the Louisiana attorney general. Considered a rising star in conservative legal circles, Agui?aga served as a law clerk for Judge Edith Jones, a conservative Ronald Reagan appointee on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Judge Don Willett, then on the Texas Supreme Court.

Agui?aga was also a member of U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz’s Senate Judiciary Committee staff and chief of staff in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Trump administration.

Most notably, Agui?aga served as a clerk for Justice Samuel Alito during the Supreme Court’s 2018-2019 term.

‘Immensely important case’

In 2022, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, a court nominee of President Donald Trump, ruled that officials under both Biden and Trump coerced social media companies to censor content over concerns it would fuel vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic or upend elections.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans prohibited the White House, the Surgeon General’s Office, the FBI, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from having practically any contact with the social media companies. It found that the Biden administration most likely overstepped the First Amendment by urging the major social media platforms to remove misleading or false content.

The Supreme Court placed a temporary stay on the order in October until it decides the case.

Three conservative justices — Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — dissented from the decision to block the injunction, with Alito calling the court’s action “highly disturbing” and arguing it threatened to curtail the discussion of unpopular political views online.

Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, called the lawsuit an “immensely important case that will determine the power of the government to pressure the social media platforms into suppressing speech.”

“The government has no authority to threaten platforms into censoring protected speech,” Abdo said, “but it must have the ability to participate in public discourse so that it can effectively govern and inform the public of its views.”

The injunction put in place by the lower courts was way too broad, said David Greene, civil liberties director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

“Government co-option of content moderation systems is a serious threat to freedom of speech,” Greene said. “But there are clearly times when it is permissible, appropriate and even good public policy for government agencies and officials to inform, communicate with, attempt to persuade or even criticize sites —free of coercion— about the user speech they publish.”

The federal government must be allowed to share information with social media companies in order to ensure the integrity of elections, said Gowri Ramachandran, deputy director of the elections and government program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

Having accurate information about elections is critical to American democracy, Ramachandran said, and the proliferation of false information through social media threatens elections and election officials.

“We already had a situation where there was attempted foreign interference during the 2016 election,” she said. “After that, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, said if there’s foreign agents putting propaganda out on his platform, ‘I want to know. Please tell me.’ And so then the government started doing that, and I wouldn’t characterize it as being an instance of even anything close to government censorship.”

Ties to misinformation, conspiracy theories

As the case has meandered through the courts, it has added several co-plaintiffs with long histories of spreading misinformation and debunked conspiracy theories.

That includes Jim Hoft, founder of the right-wing conspiracy website Gateway Pundit, who has built a career on promulgating conspiracies on a wide range of topics, from the 2018 Parkland school shooting to former President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

More recently, Hoft has been among the biggest purveyors of election fraud lies. He currently faces a defamation lawsuit in St. Louis circuit court filed by two Georgia election workers who faced death threats following Gateway Pundit’s false stories about a vote-rigging scheme.

During appeals court arguments in August, the attorneys general specifically cited Hoft, claiming that he is “currently subjected to an ongoing campaign by federal officials to target the content on his website.”

Another named co-plaintiff in the case is Jill Hines. She is co-director of Health Freedom Louisiana, an anti-vaccine organization that, among other things, advances the theory soundly rejected by medical experts that vaccines are a cause of autism.

Louisiana Illuminator Editor Greg LaRose contributed to this report.

While Missouri and Louisiana filed the case, over the last year a number of additional plaintiffs were added who have run into issues with social media companies for spreading misinformation online (Getty Images).