CV NEWS FEED // The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled 6-3 that a group of plaintiffs lacked standing in their suit against the federal government. The plaintiff’s case alleged that the government coerced Big Tech companies to censor what it deemed “misinformation” about COVID.
In Murthy v. Missouri, the states of Louisiana and Missouri joined five social media users in a case against multiple government agencies and officials, including Surgeon General Vivek Murthy.
One of the plaintiffs was Louisianan Jill Hines, an outspoken critic of COVID shots. Another plaintiff was Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Fellow & Director of the Program in Bioethics and American Democracy at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC).
CBS News reported that the “legal battle centered around the five social media users’ claims that the Biden administration’s communications with platforms violated their First Amendment rights.”
CBS continued:
The challengers had accused federal officials of mounting a “sprawling federal ‘Censorship Enterprise,’” through which they coerced social media companies into censoring or suppressing speech they disfavored.
The users and officials from Louisiana and Missouri urged the Supreme Court to limit how far the federal government can go in interactions with social media companies, arguing that the efforts from the Biden administration crossed the constitutional line from persuasion, which is allowed, to coercion, which is not.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion of the Court’s majority. She was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and all three justices appointed by Democratic presidents.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissenting opinion. He was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
In her ruling, Barrett held that “[n]either the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant.”
“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,” she added.
“Without proof of an ongoing pressure campaign, it is entirely speculative that the platforms’ future moderation decisions will be attributable, even in part, to the defendants,” Barrett wrote later in her ruling.
In his dissent, Alito disagreed: “The record clearly shows that Hines was still being censored when she sued—and that the censorship continued thereafter.”
“That was sufficient to establish the type of injury needed to obtain injunctive relief,” Alito noted.
Many conservative voices decried the ruling, including some who seemed to think its implications will be much more dire than the text of the majority opinion would suggest.
Popular conservative X (formerly Twitter) account End Wokeness implied that the Murthy ruling represents the “death” of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
“The Supreme Court ruled that the government *IS* able to pressure Big Tech platforms to remove content,” the account added. “This won’t end well for us.”
However, Babylon Bee owner and CEO Seth Dillon challenged End Wokeness’ interpretation of the ruling.
Dillon wrote that Barrett and the rest of the court’s majority did not “endorse the government’s actions or rule on whether they were constitutional.”
“They just argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a case,” Dillon explained.
“It’s a bad ruling, though, and could definitely lead to more coercion because the bar is now set unreasonably high for anyone to bring a case against the government,” he added.
The post Supreme Court rules plaintiffs suing government for ‘misinfo’ censorship lack standing appeared first on CatholicVote org.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: CV News Feed
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://catholicvote.org and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.