WASHINGTON 鈥 The on Wednesday sided with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat on topics including COVID-19 and election security.
By a 6-3 vote, the justices that favored Louisiana, Missouri and other parties in their claims that officials in the Democratic administration leaned on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court that the states and other parties did not have the legal right, or standing, to sue.
People are also reading…
Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented.
![Supreme Court](https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journalstar.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/bc/fbc27d80-22ee-5975-8563-a271332ef9e2/667c23fb6efe4.image.jpg?resize=150%2C100 150w, https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journalstar.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/bc/fbc27d80-22ee-5975-8563-a271332ef9e2/667c23fb6efe4.image.jpg?resize=200%2C133 200w, https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journalstar.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/bc/fbc27d80-22ee-5975-8563-a271332ef9e2/667c23fb6efe4.image.jpg?resize=225%2C150 225w, https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journalstar.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/bc/fbc27d80-22ee-5975-8563-a271332ef9e2/667c23fb6efe4.image.jpg?resize=300%2C200 300w, https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journalstar.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/bc/fbc27d80-22ee-5975-8563-a271332ef9e2/667c23fb6efe4.image.jpg?resize=400%2C267 400w, https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journalstar.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/bc/fbc27d80-22ee-5975-8563-a271332ef9e2/667c23fb6efe4.image.jpg?resize=540%2C360 540w, https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journalstar.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/bc/fbc27d80-22ee-5975-8563-a271332ef9e2/667c23fb6efe4.image.jpg?resize=640%2C427 640w, https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journalstar.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/bc/fbc27d80-22ee-5975-8563-a271332ef9e2/667c23fb6efe4.image.jpg?resize=750%2C500 750w, https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journalstar.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/bc/fbc27d80-22ee-5975-8563-a271332ef9e2/667c23fb6efe4.image.jpg?resize=990%2C660 990w, https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journalstar.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/bc/fbc27d80-22ee-5975-8563-a271332ef9e2/667c23fb6efe4.image.jpg?resize=1035%2C690 1035w, https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journalstar.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/bc/fbc27d80-22ee-5975-8563-a271332ef9e2/667c23fb6efe4.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C800 1200w, https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journalstar.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/bc/fbc27d80-22ee-5975-8563-a271332ef9e2/667c23fb6efe4.image.jpg?resize=1333%2C888 1333w, https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journalstar.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/bc/fbc27d80-22ee-5975-8563-a271332ef9e2/667c23fb6efe4.image.jpg?resize=1476%2C984 1476w, https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journalstar.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/bc/fbc27d80-22ee-5975-8563-a271332ef9e2/667c23fb6efe4.image.jpg?resize=1763%2C1175 2008w)
Visitors pose for photographs at the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday, June 18, 2024, in Washington.
The case is among several before the court this term that affect social media companies in the context of free speech. In February, the court heard arguments over that prohibit large social media companies from taking down posts because of the views they express. In March, the court laid out .
The cases over state laws and the one that was decided Wednesday are variations on the same theme, complaints that the platforms are censoring conservative viewpoints.
The states had argued that White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. cybersecurity agency are among those who applied 鈥渦nrelenting pressure鈥 to coerce changes in online content on social media platforms.
But the justices appeared broadly skeptical of those claims during arguments in March and several worried that common interactions between government officials and the platforms could be affected by a ruling for the states.
The Biden administration underscored those concerns when it noted that the government would lose its ability to communicate with the social media companies about antisemitic and anti-Muslim posts, as well as on issues of national security, public health and election integrity.
The Supreme Court had earlier acted to keep the lower-court rulings on hold. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas would have allowed the restrictions on government contacts with the platforms to go into effect.
Free speech advocates had urged the court to use the case to draw an appropriate line between the government鈥檚 acceptable use of the bully pulpit and coercive threats to free speech.
A panel of three judges on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled earlier that the Biden administration had probably brought unconstitutional pressure on the media platforms. The appellate panel said officials cannot attempt to 鈥渃oerce or significantly encourage鈥 changes in online content. The panel had previously narrowed a more sweeping order from a federal judge, who wanted to include even more government officials and prohibit mere encouragement of content changes.
The case is Murthy v. Missouri, 23-411.
Notable Supreme Court cases of 2024
The justices ruled in favor of a 1994 ban on firearms for people under restraining orders to stay away from their spouses or partners.
The high court found 6-3 that the Trump administration did not follow federal law when it reversed course and banned bump stocks.
The Supreme Court has preserved access to a medication that was used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. last year.聽
The unanimous opinion reverses a lower court decision tossing out the gun rights group鈥檚 lawsuit against ex-New York State Department of Financial Services Ssuperintendent Maria Vullo.
The Supreme Court has preserved a Republican-held South Carolina congressional district, rejecting a lower-court ruling the district discriminated against Black voters.
The Supreme Court has rejected a conservative-led attack that could've undermined the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.聽
The Supreme Court on Monday restored Donald Trump to 2024 presidential primary ballots, rejecting state attempts to hold the Republican former president accountable for the Capitol riot.
Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
In this Series
Notable Supreme Court cases of 2024
-
Updated
Supreme Court sends Trump immunity case back to lower court, dimming prospect of pre-election trial
-
Updated
The Supreme Court keeps hold on efforts in Texas and Florida to regulate social media platforms
-
Updated
Supreme Court makes it harder to charge Capitol riot defendants with obstruction, charge Trump faces
- 17 updates