| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | '''Murthy v. Missouri''', Supreme Court No. 23-411, is a lawsuit by states and websites against federal government [[censorship]] on the [[internet]]. Oral argument was held on March 18, 2024,<ref>A case to be heard on the same day, involving similar issues, is ''NRA v. Vullo'', in which the [[NRA]] prevailed at this stage against retaliation by the State of [[New York]]. Yet the majority opinion in ''Murthy v. Missouri'' makes any mention of the ''Vullo'' decision, while the dissent in ''Murthy'' mentions it eight times.</ref> and the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] rendered its decision on June 26, 2024, totaling about 18,000 words (including the added summary) with a dissent longer than the majority opinion. | | '''Murthy v. Missouri''', Supreme Court No. 23-411, is a lawsuit by states and websites against federal government [[censorship]] on the [[internet]]. Oral argument was held on March 18, 2024,<ref>A case to be heard on the same day, involving similar issues, is ''NRA v. Vullo'', in which the [[NRA]] prevailed at this stage against retaliation by the State of [[New York]]. Yet the majority opinion in ''Murthy v. Missouri'' makes any mention of the ''Vullo'' decision, while the dissent in ''Murthy'' mentions it eight times.</ref> and the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] rendered its decision on June 26, 2024, totaling about 18,000 words (including the added summary) with a dissent longer than the majority opinion. |
| | | | |
| − | Justice Barrett wrote for the 6-3 Court: | + | Justice [[Amy Coney Barrett]] wrote for the 6-3 Court: |
| | {{cquote|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. | | {{cquote|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. |
| | | | |
| Line 7: |
Line 7: |
| | | | |
| | 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. Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.}} | | 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. Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.}} |
| | + | ''Murthy v. Missouri'', No. 23-411, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2842, at *10-11 (June 26, 2024). |
| | | | |
| − | ''Murthy v. Missouri'', No. 23-411, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2842, at *10-11 (June 26, 2024) | + | Justice [[Sam Alito]] dissented, as joined by Justices [[Clarence Thomas]] and [[Neil Gorsuch]]. The dissent began: |
| − | | + | {{cquote|This case involves what the District Court termed “a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign” conducted by high-ranking federal officials against Americans who expressed certain disfavored views about COVID-19 on social media. ''Missouri v. Biden'', 680 F. Supp. 3d 630, 729 (WD La. 2023). Victims of the campaign perceived by the lower courts brought this action to ensure that the Government did not continue to coerce social media platforms to suppress speech. Among these victims were two States, whose public health officials were hampered in their ability to share their expertise with state residents; distinguished professors of medicine at Stanford and Harvard; a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Irvine School of Medicine; the owner and operator of a news website; and Jill Hines, the director of a consumer and human rights advocacy organization. All these victims simply wanted to speak out on a question of the utmost public importance.}} |
| | + | ''Murthy v. Missouri'', No. 23-411, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2842, at *47-48 (June 26, 2024) (Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch, JJ., dissenting). |
| | ==Questions Presented== | | ==Questions Presented== |
| | As explained by the federal government's merits brief in this ''Murthy'' case: | | As explained by the federal government's merits brief in this ''Murthy'' case: |