The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments in a case that tests the federal government’s ability to pressure social media companies to remove content it believes spreads misinformation. This case, known as Murthy v. Missouri, arose from efforts during the early months of the Biden administration to push platforms to take down posts spreading falsehoods about the pandemic and the 2020 election. A U.S. district court judge ruled that White House officials and federal agencies violated the First Amendment by coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms’ content moderation decisions.
This case is one of five at the intersection of the First Amendment and social media that the Supreme Court is considering this term. It is the first of two cases involving alleged jawboning, or informal government pressure on intermediaries to suppress speech. The second case involves a New York financial regulator pressuring banks and insurance companies to sever ties with the NRA after the Parkland shooting in 2018. Decisions in both cases are expected by the end of June.
The Biden administration’s efforts to stop misinformation by pressuring platforms like Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook to remove posts led to the current case. Social media users and states, including Louisiana and Missouri, challenged the actions, claiming their speech was stifled when their posts were removed or downgraded due to government pressure. A U.S. district judge found that Biden administration officials violated the First Amendment by coercing or significantly encouraging platforms to suppress content. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit also ruled against the government’s actions.
The Biden administration argued that its actions were aimed at informing and persuading platforms to address false information, which does not violate the First Amendment. However, state officials behind the challenge argued that the government’s actions silenced speakers and viewpoints across social media platforms, impacting free online discourse. The Supreme Court is reviewing whether the Biden administration impermissibly worked to suppress speech on social media platforms.
In a separate case involving the NRA, the Supreme Court is considering whether a former New York financial regulator violated the group’s free speech rights by pressuring insurance companies and banks to cut ties with the organization. The NRA alleged that the regulator’s actions were designed to suppress its speech, violating the First Amendment. The regulator defended her actions by citing unlawful insurance products offered by the NRA and the group’s consent order with the department. The NRA argued that allowing adverse regulatory action based on unpopular speech would undermine the First Amendment.
