Difference between revisions of "Murthy v. Missouri"
(decided today) |
(totaling about 18,000 words (including the added summary) with a dissent longer than the majority opinion.) |
||
| 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. | + | '''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 Barrett wrote for the 6-3 Court: | ||
Revision as of 21:10, June 26, 2024
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,[1] 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:
| “ | 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.
The plaintiffs, two States and five social-media users, sued dozens of Executive Branch officials and agencies, alleging that they pressured the platforms to suppress protected speech in violation of the First Amendment. The Fifth Circuit agreed, concluding that the officials’ communications rendered them responsible for the private platforms’ moderation decisions. It then affirmed a sweeping 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)
Questions Presented
As explained by the federal government's merits brief in this Murthy case:
Respondents are two States and five individual users of social-media platforms who allege that the federal government transformed the private platforms’ contentmoderation decisions into state action and violated the First Amendment by communicating with the platforms about content moderation and responding to the platforms’ inquiries about matters of public health. The district court issued a preliminary injunction that, as modified by the court of appeals, restricts speech by thousands of federal officials and employees concerning any content posted by anyone on any social-media platform.
The questions presented are:
1. Whether respondents have Article III standing.
2. Whether the government’s challenged conduct transformed private social-media companies’ contentmoderation decisions into state action and violated respondents’ First Amendment rights.
3. Whether the terms and breadth of the preliminary injunction are proper.
- ↑ 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.