Supreme Court Permits Biden Administration to Proceed with Measures Against Controversial Social Media Content

45

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would suspend an inferior court’s decision, thereby allowing the Biden Administration to press on with initiatives aimed at tackling divisive social media posts concerning matters like COVID-19 and election integrity. The court plans to entertain arguments in a case brought forward by Louisiana, Missouri, and other entities that claim the administration is unduly suppressing conservative perspectives. This lawsuit contributes to a term that is already replete with legal challenges concerning social media.

Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas were opposed to entertaining the emergency appeal filed by the Biden administration. Justice Alito, in his dissent, expressed concern that the court’s decision might be interpreted as providing the government with tacit approval to use authoritarian methods to manipulate public opinion on platforms that are increasingly central to news dissemination.

Individuals within the White House communications team, the Surgeon General’s office, the FBI, and the U.S. cybersecurity agency would have been impacted by the lower court’s order. According to the lawsuit, these entities had influenced changes to content on platforms such as Facebook and X (formerly Twitter). It is worth noting that the social media companies themselves are not defendants in the lawsuit.

Previously, a trio of judges from the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had determined that the Biden administration likely exerted unconstitutional pressures on these media platforms. They stated that government officials should not “coerce or significantly encourage” alterations in online content. In response, the Justice Department argued that the appeals court’s ruling, as well as a broader judgment from a federal judge in Louisiana—which the appeals court had subsequently narrowed—contained factual and legal inaccuracies.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar contended that the 5th Circuit’s allegations of coercion were unfounded because no specific threats of repercussions for non-compliance were identified. Prelogar noted that the definition of coercion used by the 5th Circuit was so relaxed that mere influence exerted by powerful entities like the FBI was deemed coercive.

The 5th Circuit had earlier moderated a more expansive order issued over the summer by a federal judge, which sought to implicate additional government officials and prevent even the simple encouragement of content modifications.

This case is one among four other social media-related cases currently on the Supreme Court’s docket. The court is also reviewing laws passed by Republican lawmakers in Florida and Texas, which prevent large social media platforms from removing posts based on their expressed viewpoints. The tech companies argue that these laws infringe upon their First Amendment rights. These laws mirror a prevailing sentiment among Republicans that social media platforms systematically suppress conservative voices.

Additionally, two other pending cases are examining the legality of public officials blocking critics from their social media accounts—a subject previously touched upon in litigation involving former President Donald Trump, which was dismissed after the conclusion of his presidential term in January 2021.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Supreme Court and Social Media Regulation

More about Supreme Court and Social Media Regulation

• Supreme Court Official Ruling
• Biden Administration’s Policy on Social Media Regulation
• 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ Previous Ruling
• Justice Department’s Official Statement
• Recent Social Media Legislation in Florida and Texas
• Previous Supreme Court Case Involving Social Media and Public Officials
• Justice Samuel Alito’s Complete Dissent