SCOTUS Likely To Reject Social Media “Censorship” Claims Brought By Republican AGs And Anti-Vaxxers

The Washington Post reports:

The Supreme Court seems likely to reject a Republican-led effort that could reshape how politicians communicate with major social media companies — with sweeping consequences for government efforts to secure elections and combat health misinformation.

A majority of justices from across the ideological spectrum expressed concern about hamstringing federal government communications with social media platforms on issues such as public health, national security and elections.

In at times tense exchanges, the court’s liberal justices have pushed back on arguments from Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, who argued the federal government violated the First Amendment in frequent, secretive communications with Silicon Valley.

Reuters reports:



The Republican-led states of Missouri and Louisiana, along with five individual social media users, sued the administration. They argued that the government’s actions violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment free speech rights of users whose posts were removed from platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, now called X.

The case tests whether the administration crossed the line from mere communication and persuasion to strong arming or coercing platforms – sometimes called “jawboning” – to unlawfully censor disfavored speech, as lower courts found.

Biden’s administration has argued that officials sought to mitigate the hazards of online misinformation, including false information about vaccines during the pandemic that they said was causing preventable deaths, by alerting social media companies to content that violated the platforms’ own policies.