The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday against a challenge from the State of Missouri, which sought to prohibit government officials from contacting social media companies to combat “misinformation.” The former Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, now a U.S. Senator, had launched the challenge in the aftermath of the “Twitter Files.”
The case in question, Murthy v. Missouri, which began as Missouri v. Biden under Schmitt, centered around whether or not government officials were violating the First Amendment by contacting and instructing social media companies to remove posts considered to be “misinformation.” However, today’s 6–3 ruling did not address the First Amendment questions of Missouri’s original lawsuit, and simply limited itself to saying that the states involved lacked direct injury and thus the standing to sue.
Subscribe Today
Get daily emails in your inbox
In dissent from the majority, Justice Alito wrote, “High-ranking government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech. Because the court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.”
The current Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, is facing a primary from the Trump attorney Will Scharf, posted a surprisingly optimistic statement on the Supreme Court’s decision, stating that as the decision allows further discovery and depositions into the matter, and commenting, “We will remain vigilant to build the wall of separation between tech and state.”
As the constitutional question which Missouri had originally sued under was not addressed, it is possible that a similar suit may succeed in prohibiting government officials from contacting and promoting social media censorship, if better proof of direct injury can be provided.
Read the full article here
