The Supreme Court on Wednesday tossed a case claiming that the Biden administration unlawfully coerced social media companies into removing content and banning users based on political views.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue - as opposed to tossing the case on merit.
GOP attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, along with five social media users, filed the underlying lawsuit claiming that US government officials exceeded their authority by pressuring social media platforms to moderate content. The individual plaintiffs include Gateway Pundit owner Jim Hoft.
The laws sought to prevent social media companies from banning users based on their political views, even if users violate platform policies.
The lawsuit included various claims relating to activities that occurred in 2020 and before, including efforts to deter the spread of false information about Covid and the presidential election. Donald Trump was president at the time, but the district court ruling focused on actions taken by the government after President Joe Biden took office in January 2021.
In July last year, Louisiana-based U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty barred officials from “communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.” -NBC News
On appeal the New Orleans-Based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed the scope of Doughty's injunction, however it still required the White House, FBI and top health officials not to "coerce or significantly encourage" social media companies to remove content considered to be misinformation in a practice known as "jawboning" - in which the government pressures private parties to do its bidding, sometimes with the implicit threat of negative consequences if its demands aren't met.
