Murthy v. Missouri

Last updated

Murthy v. Missouri
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 18, 2024
Decided June 26, 2024
Full case name Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General, et al. v. Missouri, et al.
Docket no. 23-411
Case history
PriorMotion for preliminary injunction granted in part and denied in part, Missouri v. Biden, No. 22-cv-1213 (W.D. La., July 4, 2023); injunction affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and modified in part, No. 23-30445 (5th Cir., October 3, 2023); injunction stayed and certiorari granted sub nom.Murthy v. Missouri, 601 U.S. ____ (October 20, 2023).
Questions presented
(1) Whether respondents have Article III standing; (2) Whether the government's challenged conduct transformed private social-media companies' content-moderation decisions into state action and violated respondents' First Amendment rights; and (3) Whether the terms and breadth of the preliminary injunction are proper.
Holding
Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityBarrett, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Jackson
DissentAlito, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch

Murthy v. Missouri (originally filed as Missouri v. Biden) was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States involving the First Amendment, the federal government, and social media. The states of Missouri and Louisiana, led by Missouri's then Attorney General Eric Schmitt, filed suit against the U.S. government in the Western District of Louisiana. They claimed that the federal government pressured social media companies to censor conservative views and criticism of the Biden administration in violation of the right to freedom of expression. The government said it had only made requests, not demands, that social media operators remove misinformation.

Contents

On July 4, 2023, Judge Terry A. Doughty issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting several agencies and members of the Biden administration from contacting social media services to request the blocking of material, with exceptions for material involving illegal activity. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that there had been some coercion in the government's contact with social media companies in violation of the First Amendment, but narrowed the extent of Doughty's injunction to block any attempts by the government to threaten or coerce moderation on social media. The U.S. Supreme Court initially stayed the Fifth Circuit's order, then granted review of the case by writ of certiorari. On June 26, 2024, the Court ruled 6–3 that the states lacked standing to bring suit.

Background

Since around 2020, Missouri Attorney General (at the time) Eric Schmitt had been filing numerous lawsuits against the Biden administration, with a total of 26 suits as of October 2022. According to Schmitt's senate campaign website, these suits were filed to hold the Biden administration accountable, while Schmitt later said "The Attorney General's Office standing in between Missourians and a radical, overreaching government is a hallmark of federalism, and states have a vital duty to keep the federal government in check." [1] Targets of Schmitt's lawsuits included the administration's policies on oil and gas production, Biden's planned debt forgiveness of student loans, and mask mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. [1] Missouri v. Biden was one of several high-profile lawsuits Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed against the Biden administration. [1] [2]

In 2022, Elon Musk bought out Twitter and significantly altered the way it operated. He also worked with independent journalists to release the "Twitter Files", a series of internal communications that Musk and the journalists assert show that parts of the U.S. government were working with Twitter to suppress free speech related to election fraud and misinformation about the pandemic. [3] [4] While legal analysts, speaking with The New York Times , believed that the steps Twitter took to moderate content after contact by the U.S. government were not censorship, many Republicans believed the Twitter Files proved their views were being censored. [5] The Republican-controlled House of Representatives held a set of hearings in March 2023 about the Biden administration "weaponizing" social media for its own purposes. Schmitt (now a U.S. senator) and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry (now the governor of Louisiana) were among those who testified before the committee with information from their case's discovery process, bringing their ongoing lawsuit greater public attention. [6] [7]

Filing and depositions

The lawsuit alleges that President Joe Biden and his administration were "working with social media giants such as Meta, Twitter, and YouTube to censor and suppress free speech, including truthful information, related to COVID-19, election integrity, and other topics, under the guise of combating 'misinformation'." [8] The lawsuit was co-filed with Louisiana's Attorney General Jeff Landry in May 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Additional plaintiffs were added several months later, including Jim Hoft, owner of The Gateway Pundit , a conservative publication, [9] and Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, academics who co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which questioned the government's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. [10]

The plaintiffs obtained subpoenas in October and November 2022 from former and current members of the Biden administration, including Anthony Fauci, who served as Chief Medical Advisor to the President; Karine Jean-Pierre, who was the White House Press Secretary; and Kate Starbird, who served as an academic advisor to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. [9] [11] The government attempted to block these deposition requests, but only a few such requests were granted. [12] Fauci attended a deposition in November 2022, which Schmitt claimed proved that social media censored content based on what Fauci said during the pandemic. [13]

Preliminary injunction

Hearings for the case were held in May 2023. Judge Doughty issued his ruling on July 4, 2023, issuing a preliminary injunction against several Biden administration officials from contacting social media services for "the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech." [14] In his 155-page ruling, Doughty wrote: "The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country." [15] He continued: "If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States' history. The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the government has used its power to silence the opposition." [14]

Government agencies covered by the injunction included the Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services, State Department, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. [16] In addition to numerous social media companies, the injunction blocks the government from communicating with three academic programs at Stanford University and the University of Washington that study the spread of misinformation online: the Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project, and the Stanford Internet Observatory. [16] The injunction allows for exceptions related to criminal activity and national threats. [17]

The U.S. Department of Justice filed its intent to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit the next day. [16] The Department of Justice sought a stay of Doughty's injunction, saying that it would prevent them from "working with social media companies on initiatives to prevent grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes" ahead of the 2024 elections. [18] Legal experts, speaking to Reuters, said that while the case has merit, Doughty's preliminary injunction will face tough legal challenges on appeal. [19] On July 14, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted a temporary administrative stay of the injunction until further order. [20]

Appellate decision

On September 8, 2023, the Fifth Circuit ruling upheld the district court ruling against the Biden administration. The court found that some of the communications between the federal government and the social media companies to try to fight alleged COVID-19 misinformation "coerced or significantly encouraged social media platforms to moderate content", which violated the First Amendment. [21] But the court also ruled that Doughty's preliminary injunction was too broad, as it blocked some legal social media content created by government, and narrowed the injunction to prevent the government from taking "actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech. That includes, but is not limited to, compelling the platforms to act, such as by intimating that some form of punishment will follow a failure to comply with any request, or supervising, directing, or otherwise meaningfully controlling the social-media companies' decision-making processes." [21] [22] The court placed enforcement of the injunction on hold for ten days to allow any appeals to be filed. [21] [23] Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito granted a temporary stay of the order on September 14, 2023, lasting initially until September 23 and then extended to September 27, to give both parties the ability to argue further on the appeal. [24] [25] The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals expanded the injunction issued in September to include the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), ruling that it used frequent interactions with social media platforms "to push them to adopt more restrictive policies on election-related speech". [26]

Supreme Court

In October 2023, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Murthy v. Missouri. [27] The Court also lifted the injunctions set by the lower courts, allowing the federal government to continue to contact social media companies without restrictions while the case continues. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the lifting of the injunctions, with Alito writing, "Government censorship of private speech is antithetical to our democratic form of government, and therefore today's decision is highly disturbing." [28] The Court heard oral argument on March 18, 2024. [29]

The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 26, 2024. The 6–3 majority determined that neither the states nor other respondents had standing under Article III, reversing the Fifth Circuit decision. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion, stating: "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." [30]

Justice Alito wrote the dissent, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch. He wrote that this was "one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years", [30] that the respondents had brought enough evidence to suggest the government's actions were unconstitutional, but that the Court "shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think. That is regrettable." [30]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jerry Edwin Smith</span> American judge

Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (AOSI) is a U.S. public charity organized in 2003 under the laws of the State of Delaware.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eric Schmitt</span> American lawyer & politician (born 1975)

Eric Stephen Schmitt is an American lawyer and politician serving as the junior United States senator from Missouri since 2023. A member of the Republican Party, Schmitt served as the 43rd Missouri Attorney General from 2019 to 2023.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 230</span> US federal law on website liability

Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by its users. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

<i>Hedges v. Obama</i> American legal case

Hedges v. Obama was a lawsuit filed in January 2012 against the Obama administration and members of the U.S. Congress by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges, challenging the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA). The legislation permitted the U.S. government to indefinitely detain people "who are part of or substantially support Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States". The plaintiffs contended that Section 1021(b)(2) of the law allows for detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S. on "suspicion of providing substantial support" to groups engaged in hostilities against the U.S. such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban respectively that the NDAA arms the U.S. military with the ability to imprison indefinitely journalists, activists and human-rights workers based on vague allegations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2014 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2014 term, which began October 6, 2014 and concluded October 4, 2015.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with equal rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in 36 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

<i>Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump</i> American freedom of speech legal case

Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226, is a case at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on the use of social media as a public forum. The plaintiffs, Philip N. Cohen, Eugene Gu, Holly Figueroa O'Reilly, Nicholas Pappas, Joseph M. Papp, Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza, and Brandon Neely, are a group of Twitter users blocked by U.S. President Donald Trump's personal @realDonaldTrump account. They alleged that Twitter constitutes a public forum, and that a government official blocking access to that forum is a violation of the First Amendment. The lawsuit also named as defendants White House press secretary Sean Spicer and social media director Dan Scavino.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terry A. Doughty</span> American judge (born 1959)

Terry Alvin Doughty is the Chief United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Nominated by President Donald Trump, Doughty served as a judge on the Fifth Judicial District Court in Louisiana from 2009 to 2018.

<i>Karnoski v. Trump</i> Lawsuit filed on August 29, 2017

Karnoski v. Trump (2:17-cv-01297-MJP) was a lawsuit filed on August 29, 2017, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The suit, like the similar suits Jane Doe v. Trump, Stone v. Trump, and Stockman v. Trump, sought to block Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service for transgender people under the auspices of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The suit was filed on the behalf of three transgender plaintiffs, the Human Rights Campaign, and the Gender Justice League by Lambda Legal and OutServe-SLDN.

<i>Juliana v. United States</i> 2015 lawsuit

Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. was a climate-related lawsuit filed in 2015 by 21 youth plaintiffs against the United States and several executive branch officials. Filing their case in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, the plaintiffs, represented by the non-profit organization Our Children's Trust, include Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, the members of Martinez's organization Earth Guardians, and climatologist James Hansen as a "guardian for future generations". Some fossil fuel and industry groups initially intervened as defendants but later requested to be dropped following the 2016 presidential election, stating that the case would be well defended under the new administration.

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), abbreviated Janus v. AFSCME, is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on US labor law, concerning the power of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members. Under the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which applies to the private sector, union security agreements can be allowed by state law. The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech, overruling the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that had previously allowed such fees.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive Order 13990</span> Executive order signed by U.S. President Joe Biden

Executive Order 13990, officially titled Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis is an executive order signed by President Joe Biden on January 20, 2021, which implements various environmental policies of his administration including revoking the permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline and temporarily prohibiting drilling in the arctic refuge.

Shurtleff v. City of Boston, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the City of Boston's program that allowed groups to have their flags flown outside Boston City Hall. In a unanimous 9–0 decision, the Court ruled that the city violated a Christian group's free speech rights when it denied their request to raise a Christian flag over City Hall.

Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton are pending United States Supreme Court cases related to protected speech under the First Amendment, content moderation by interactive service providers on the Internet under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and two state statutes passed in Florida and Texas that sought to limit this moderation. While originating with statutes in two different states, the Moody and Paxton cases are often discussed in tandem because the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to review them together.

United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. 670 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to federal immigration law.

Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. 477 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the forgiveness of federal student loans by the Biden administration in 2022, challenged by multiple states. The Supreme Court's ruling was issued on June 30, 2023, ruling 6–3 that the Secretary of Education did not have the power to waive student loans under the HEROES Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Andrew Bailey (politician)</span> Attorney General of Missouri

Andrew Bailey is an American attorney and politician. A Republican, he has served as Missouri Attorney General since appointment by Governor Mike Parson in January 2023.

Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. 367 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case to challenge the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s approval of mifepristone, a drug frequently used in medical abortion procedures. The plaintiffs, led by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM), argued that the FDA did not properly approve the use of the drug mifepristone for pregnancy termination under Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act regulations and asked for an injunction to withdraw the drug's approval, thus removing it from the market. AHM's suit followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in 2022, which reversed Roe v. Wade and asserted there was no constitutional right to abortion at the federal level, leading conservative states and groups to further restrict abortion access.

New Civil Liberties Alliance(NCLA) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit public interest law firm founded in 2017 by Columbia Law School professor Philip Hamburger. The group challenges what it views as unlawful uses of administrative power. Bloomberg Law wrote that the group was founded "to fill a gap in the legal ecosystem: the protection of individual rights from entrenched government regulation."

References

  1. 1 2 3 "Biden Suits Get Mixed Results for Missouri Senate Candidate". Associated Press. October 26, 2022. Retrieved July 5, 2023– via U.S. News and World Report.
  2. ↑ Wicentowski, Danny (October 26, 2022). "How AG Schmitt's lawsuit is using the First Amendment to get to Dr. Fauci". KWMU . Retrieved July 8, 2023.
  3. ↑ "Trump Says 'Twitter Files' Bolster Case Jan. 6 Ban Was Illegal". Bloomberg.com. May 4, 2023. Retrieved September 10, 2023– via www.bloomberg.com.
  4. ↑ Fung, Brian (June 6, 2023). "Twitter's own lawyers refute Elon Musk's claim that the 'Twitter Files' exposed US government censorship". CNN . Retrieved July 8, 2023.
  5. ↑ Myers, Steven Lee (February 9, 2023). "Free Speech vs. Disinformation Comes to a Head". The New York Times . Retrieved July 8, 2023.
  6. ↑ "'A mockery and a disgrace': Key takeaways from House GOP hearing on social media censorship". Yahoo News. March 30, 2023.
  7. ↑ Goldstein, Adam (March 30, 2023). "U.S. House members battle over 'weaponization' of government in hearing on Missouri lawsuit". Missouri Independent . Retrieved July 8, 2023.
  8. ↑ "Missouri, Louisiana AGs File Suit Against President Biden, Top Admin Officials for Allegedly Colluding with Social Media Giants to Censor and Suppress Free Speech". Eric Schmitt. May 5, 2022. Archived from the original on May 6, 2022. Retrieved July 5, 2023.
  9. 1 2 Hancock, Jason (November 21, 2022). "Missouri AG aligns with St. Louis conspiracy theorist in social media lawsuit". Missouri Independent . Retrieved July 6, 2023.
  10. ↑ Myers, Steven Lee; McCabe, David (July 4, 2023). "Federal Judge Limits Biden Officials' Contacts With Social Media Sites". The New York Times . Retrieved July 8, 2023.
  11. ↑ Desrochers, Daniel. "Judge says Fauci, Jean-Pierre have to turn over emails to social media companies to Schmitt". Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on September 7, 2022.
  12. ↑ Hancock, Jason (November 22, 2022). "Missouri AG set to depose Anthony Fauci in social media lawsuit". Missouri Independent . Retrieved July 8, 2023.
  13. ↑ Schemmel, Alec (December 6, 2022). "Fauci said 'I don't recall' 174 times during deposition about collusion with social media". WPDE-TV . The National Desk . Retrieved July 8, 2023.
  14. 1 2 Myers, Steven Lee; McCabe, David (July 4, 2023). "Federal Judge Limits Biden Officials' Contacts With Social Media Sites". The New York Times– via NYTimes.com.
  15. ↑ Lawler, Richard (July 4, 2023). "US judge blocks Biden officials from contacting social media sites". The Verge.
  16. 1 2 3 Wamsley, Laurel; Bond, Shannon (July 5, 2023). "U.S. is barred from combating disinformation on social media. Here's what it means". NPR . Retrieved July 8, 2023.
  17. ↑ McGill, Kevin; O'Brien, Matt; Swenson, Ali (July 5, 2023). "Judge's order limits government contact with social media operators, raises disinformation questions". Associated Press News . Retrieved July 8, 2023.
  18. ↑ Zakrzewski, Cat; Nix, Naomi; Menn, Joseph (July 8, 2023). "Social media injunction unravels plans to protect 2024 elections". Washington Post . Retrieved July 8, 2023.
  19. ↑ Pierson, Brendan; Goudsward, Andrew (July 6, 2023). "Order limiting Biden officials' social media outreach on shaky legal ground, experts say". Reuters . Retrieved July 8, 2023.
  20. ↑ Zakrzewski, Cat (July 14, 2023). "5th Circuit pauses order restricting Biden administration's tech contacts". Washington Post . Retrieved July 14, 2023.
  21. 1 2 3 Snead, Tierney (September 8, 2023). "Appeals court says Biden admin likely violated First Amendment but narrows order blocking officials from communicating with social media companies". CNN . Retrieved September 9, 2023.
  22. ↑ "Free Speech, Social Media Firms, and the Fifth Circuit". September 10, 2023.
  23. ↑ Guynn, Jessica (September 8, 2023). "Biden administration coerced social media giants into possible free speech violations: court". USA Today. Archived from the original on September 12, 2023.
  24. ↑ Storh, Greg; Brimbaum, Emily (September 14, 2023). "Supreme Court Pauses Curbs on Biden Social Media Contacts". Bloomberg News . Retrieved September 14, 2023.
  25. ↑ "No. 23A243: Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General, et al., Applicants v. Missouri, et al". supremecourt.gov. Retrieved November 5, 2023.
  26. ↑ "Federal appeals court expands limits on Biden administration in First Amendment case". USA Today. October 3, 2023. Retrieved November 5, 2023.
  27. ↑ Feiner, Lauren (March 15, 2024). "SCOTUS to hear case on how much the government can talk to social media companies". The Verge.
  28. ↑ Liptak, Adam (October 20, 2023). "Supreme Court Lifts Limits for Now on Biden Officials' Contacts With Tech Platforms". The New York Times . Retrieved October 20, 2023.
  29. ↑ Supreme Court hears arguments on First Amendment cases CNN. March 18, 2024.
  30. 1 2 3 https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/26/politics/social-media-disinformation-supreme-court-ruling/index.html
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.