Murthy v. Missouri: the government on the phone with the platforms
Two states and five users sued dozens of officials: the government pressured platforms into censorship. In June 2024 the Supreme Court dismissed the case — for lack of standing. The merits were never decided.
What happened
Between 2020 and 2022 the White House, CDC, FBI and other agencies communicated routinely with Facebook, Twitter/X, YouTube and Google about moderating content — mostly Covid-19. The plaintiffs (including Missouri and Louisiana) sought an injunction. A district court granted a sweeping one.
The ruling (26.06.2024)
The Supreme Court vacated: no plaintiff could trace a specific moderation act by a specific official at a specific platform to their own speech. The majority (Barrett) acknowledged the record shows the government “played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices”. Alito, dissenting with Thomas and Gorsuch: the Court “erects an impenetrable wall around the Government”.
Debunking
False: “The Supreme Court confirmed there was no censorship.” — Wrong. It dismissed on standing; the documented communications are real and uncontradicted.
Also false: “The court proved state censorship.” — It did the opposite of decide. Both spins are wrong; the record is the evidence.
Sources
- Opinion (PDF)
- SCOTUSblog
- Dossier: Zuckerberg’s letter