Supreme Court agrees with Biden government in dispute over social networks

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in favor of President Joe Biden’s administration in a dispute with Republican-governed states over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial messages on social media on issues such as COVID-19 and election integrity. .

By six votes to three, the justices dismissed lower court rulings in favor of Louisiana, Missouri and other participants who alleged that the Democratic administration pressured the platforms to unconstitutionally suppress conservative views.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, said the complainants did not have the legal right to sue. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The decision should not affect the common user of social networks or the content they wish to publish there.

It is one of several cases that the highest court is evaluating this period and that have to do with freedom of expression on social networks. In February, the court heard arguments over laws passed by Republicans in Florida and Texas that prohibit social media companies from removing messages based on the views they express. In March, the court published standards under which a public official can block a follower of his or her on the networks.

The state law cases and the one decided Wednesday are variations on the same theme: accusations that social media censors conservative views.

The states had argued that the White House communications department, the national director of public health, the FBI and the US cybersecurity agency are among those exerting “relentless pressure” against social networks to change their content.

The justices had been deeply skeptical of those claims when they heard arguments in March, with some expressing concern that ordinary interactions between public officials and the platforms could be affected if they ruled in favor of the states.

The Biden administration highlighted those concerns by noting that the government would lose its ability to communicate with companies about anti-Semitic or anti-Islamic content, as well as on issues of national security, public health and election integrity.

However, in their ruling Wednesday, the justices did not comment on the content of the states’ claims or the administration’s response.

“We begin and end this with the issue of the right to sue,” Barrett wrote. “At this time, neither individual nor state plaintiffs have demonstrated that they have the right to sue for relief against any defendant. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to decide the merits of the dispute.”

In his dissent, Alito wrote that the states had amply demonstrated that they have the right to sue. “For months, senior administration officials exerted relentless pressure against Facebook to stifle Americans’ free speech. Because the court unjustifiably refuses to respond to this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent,” Alito wrote for the minority.

Connect with the Voice of America! Subscribe to our channels Youtube, WhatsApp and to the newsletter. Turn on notifications and follow us on Facebook, x and Instagram.