The question
Whether two States and five social-media users have Article III standing to obtain an injunction barring federal officials from pressuring or encouraging social-media platforms to suppress protected speech.
Murthy v. Missouri
What the Court decided
The Court reversed and held that neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs established Article III standing to seek an injunction against the federal defendants. Because the plaintiffs sought forward-looking relief turning on the independent actions of platforms not before the court, they had to show a substantial risk that at least one platform would restrict at least one plaintiff's speech in the near future in response to a government defendant. The record's lack of specific causation findings tying any content-moderation decision to the government made that showing unlikely at the preliminary injunction stage.
How the justices split
6-3The Court's opinion
Barrett, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Jackson
The plaintiffs lack Article III standing to obtain forward-looking relief. Their injuries are one step removed because they depend on the platforms' independent content-moderation decisions rather than on the government, and the platforms are not before the court. To have standing the plaintiffs must show a substantial risk that in the near future at least one platform will restrict at least one plaintiff's speech in response to at least one government defendant. The record lacks specific causation findings linking any discrete instance of content moderation to the government, so the plaintiffs are not likely to succeed in carrying that burden at the preliminary injunction stage.
Dissenting
Alito, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch
Filed a dissenting opinion disagreeing with the Court's conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to establish Article III standing.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant.
Source: syllabus, Held
The plaintiffs sought to enjoin government agencies and officials from pressuring or encouraging platforms to suppress protected speech, not to enjoin the platforms themselves.
Source: syllabus, Held
A federal court cannot redress injury that results from the independent action of a third party not before the court, and forward-looking relief requires a real and immediate threat of repeated injury.
Source: syllabus, Held
The primary weakness in the record of past restrictions was the lack of specific causation findings with respect to any discrete instance of content moderation.
Source: syllabus, Held
Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson, and Justice Alito filed a dissent joined by Thomas and Gorsuch.
Source: syllabus, lineup