Supreme Court Rules for Biden Administration in Dispute on Social Media

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security.

The justices rejected lower court rulings that favored Louisiana, Missouri and other parties in their claims that Democratic administration officials relied on social media platforms to unconstitutionally suppress conservative viewpoints.

The case is among several pending in court this term that affect social media companies in the context of freedom of expression. In February, the court heard arguments about laws passed by Republicans in Florida and Texas that prohibit large social media companies from taking down posts because of opinions they express. In March, the court set standards for when public officials can block their social media followers.

The state law cases and what was decided Wednesday are variations on the same theme, complaints that platforms are censoring conservative viewpoints.

The states argued that White House communications staff, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. cybersecurity agency were among those who applied “relentless pressure” to coerce changes to online content on social media platforms.

But the justices appeared largely skeptical of these claims during March arguments, and several worried that ordinary interactions between government officials and the platforms could be affected by a decision by the states.

The Biden administration underscored these concerns when it noted that the government would lose the ability to communicate with social media companies about anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim posts, as well as issues of national security, public health and election integrity.

The Supreme Court has previously acted to keep lower court rulings on hold. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas would have allowed the restrictions on government contact with the platforms to take effect.

Free speech advocates urged the court to use the case to draw an appropriate line between acceptable government use of the bully pulpit and coercive threats to free speech.

A three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled that the Biden administration had likely exerted unconstitutional pressure on media platforms. The appeals panel said authorities cannot attempt to “significantly coerce or encourage” changes to online content. The panel had already narrowed a more sweeping order from a federal judge, who wanted to include even more government officials and ban the mere encouragement of content changes.

The case is Murthy v. Missouri, 23-411.