With a majority of six out of nine justices, the United States Supreme Court ruled this Wednesday (26) in favor of state agencies (including the FBI) and Biden administration officials who pressured social media platforms to censor alleged misinformation regarding the 2020 American presidential elections and the Covid-19 pandemic. The court found that the plaintiffs, which included the states of Louisiana and Missouri, and five individuals, failed to put the government in the dock, instead targeting the platforms.
The court ruled that the federal court cannot repair damages that result from the independent action of third parties who are not before the court. The plaintiffs also failed to prove that they faced a real and immediate threat of harm recurring from censorship. While the government had a role in some moderation decisions by the platforms, the evidence showed that the platforms often exercised their own judgment independently.
The case had been successful in lower courts but was overturned by the Supreme Court. The high court found that the lower courts erred by simplifying the evidence and treating both plaintiffs and defendants as unified actors. The individual plaintiffs, which included doctors and health activists, were unable to link the restrictions they faced on social media to the defendants’ communications with the platforms.
For the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), the American constitutional court avoided deciding whether government pressure on social media platforms violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. While considered a defeat for free expression, the entity noted that the Supreme Court acknowledges that courts have the power to stop government attempts to pressure social media platforms if proven. FIRE echoed the request for Congress to take action in enforcing the Constitution.