Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Murthy v. Missouri

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Murthy v. Missouri
Term: 2023
Important Dates
Argued: March 18, 2024
Decided: June 26, 2024
Outcome
reversed and remanded
Vote
6-3
Majority
Amy Coney Barrett • Chief Justice John Roberts • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Brett Kavanaugh • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Dissenting
Samuel Alito • Clarence Thomas • Neil Gorsuch

Murthy v. Missouri is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 26, 2024, during the court's October 2023-2024 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 18, 2024.

The Court reversed and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a 6-3 ruling, holding that the respondents did not have standing, under Article III, to seek an injunction.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned misinformation and censorship claims under the First Amendment related to COVID-19 and the 2020 presidential election. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented:
    "(1) Whether respondents have Article III standing;
    (2) Whether the government’s challenged conduct transformed private social-media companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated respondents’ First Amendment rights; and
    (3) Whether the terms and breadth of the preliminary injunction are proper."[2]
  • The outcome: The Court reversed and remanded the decision, holding that the respondents did not have standing to seek an injunction.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[3] To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    Personnel

    The following personnel details are sourced from the U.S. Supreme Court docket file on Murthy v. Missouri:[4]

    • Petitioner: U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, et al.
      • Legal counsel representing the petitioner: U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar
    • Respondent: Missouri, et al.[3][5]
      • Legal counsel representing the respondents: Missouri Solicitor General Joshua Michael Divine, John Julian Vecchione (New Civil Liberties Alliance), Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, D. John Sauer (James Otis Law Group, LLC).

    Case summary

    The respondents in the case, collectively known as "Missouri", claimed that the U.S. government was asking social media companies to remove alleged misinformation and users accounts sharing misinformation from their platforms regarding the 2020 presidential election, COVID-19 origins and treatment, and election integrity. According to Missouri, the companies complied with these requests and the respondents had posts and stories removed or downgraded on the social media platforms as a result. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit opinion, "Their content touched on a host of divisive topics like the COVID-19 lab-leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story."[3][4][6][7][8]

    Missouri sued the federal government in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana for censorship under the First Amendment. In response, the U.S. government alleged that their speech as a government was legal because they were flagging content that violated the platforms' policies and sought to stop the spread of online misinformation campaigns. The Western District of Louisiana granted preliminary injunctive relief on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents, prohibiting the government from trying to influence social media platforms' content moderation. The injunction impacted the White House, the State Department, the U.S. Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).[3][4][6][7][8]

    On appeal to the Fifth Circuit, the court held:[3]

    “ The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED with respect to the White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC, and the FBI, and REVERSED as to all other officials. The preliminary injunction is VACATED except for prohibition number six, which is MODIFIED as set forth herein. The Appellants’ motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED as moot. The Appellants’ request to extend the administrative stay for ten days following the date hereof pending an application to the Supreme Court of the United States is GRANTED, and the matter is STAYED.[9] ”

    On September 14, 2023, the U.S. government filed an emergency docket application with the U.S. Supreme Court to hold the district court's injunction. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar alleged that the relationship between the social media companies and the government was collaborative, rather than coercive. Fifth Circuit Justice Samuel Alito paused the district court order while SCOTUS considered the U.S. government's request. In the meantime, the Fifth Circuit reinstated the district court order as it pertained to CISA on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents. On October 20, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Biden administration’s request to stay the full order until the court issued a ruling in the case during October Term 2023-2024.[4][6][8][10]

    Justice Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the court's decision to hold the district court order, writing:[10]

    “ At this time in the history of our country, what the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news. That is most unfortunate.[9] ”

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ (1) Whether respondents have Article III standing;
    (2) Whether the government’s challenged conduct transformed private social-media companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated respondents’ First Amendment rights; and
    (3) Whether the terms and breadth of the preliminary injunction are proper.[9]     		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[11]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[12]

    Outcome

    In a 6-3 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding that the respondents did not have standing to seek an injunction. Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote:[1]

    “

    The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the years-long communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics. This Court’s standing doctrine prevents us from “exercis[ing such] general legal oversight” of the other branches of Government. TransUnion, 594 U. S., at 423–424. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. [9]

    		”
    —Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

    In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito wrote:[1]

    “

    In sum, the officials wielded potent authority. Their communications with Facebook were virtual demands. And Facebook’s quavering responses to those demands show that it felt a strong need to yield.

    For these reasons, I would hold that Hines is likely to prevail on her claim that the White House coerced Facebook into censoring her speech.

    For months, 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. [9]

    		”
    —Justice Samuel Alito

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2023-2024

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 2, 2023. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[13]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Supreme Court of the United States, "MURTHY, SURGEON GENERAL, ET AL. v. MISSOURI ET AL.," decided June 26, 2024
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "23-411 MURTHY V. MISSOURI: QUESTION PRESENTED," Certiorari Granted October 20, 2023
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Missouri v. Biden, decided September 8, 2023
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 U.S. Supreme Court, "No. 23-411," accessed January 18, 2024
    5. ↑ According to the Fifth Circuit opinion, the plaintiff-respondents are "(1) Jayanta Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, two epidemiologists who co-wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, an article criticizing COVID-19 lockdowns; (2) Jill Hines, an activist who spearheaded “Reopen Louisiana”; (3) Aaron Kheriaty, a psychiatrist who opposed lockdowns and vaccine mandates; (4) Jim Hoft, the owner of the Gateway Pundit, a once-deplatformed news site; and (5) Missouri and Louisiana, who assert their sovereign and quasi-sovereign interests in protecting their citizens and the free flow of information. Bhattacharya, Kulldorff, Hines, Kheriaty, and Hoft, collectively, are referred to herein as the “Individual Plaintiffs.” Missouri and Louisiana, together, are referred to as the “State Plaintiffs.”"
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 U.S. Supreme Court, "Murthy v. Missouri APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF THE INJUNCTION ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA," filed September 14, 2023
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Oyez, "Murthy v. Missouri: Facts of the Case," accessed January 16, 2024
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 SCOTUSblog, "Justices allow federal government continued communication over social media content moderation," October 20, 2023
    9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "Murthy v. Missouri ON APPLICATION FOR STAY," October 20, 2023
    11. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued March 18, 2024
    12. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued March 18, 2024
    13. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Murthy_v._Missouri&oldid=9617047"