SCOTUS Says States Lack Standing to Challenge WH Communications With Social Media Companies

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a pair of Republican state attorneys general did not have grounds to sue the Biden administration over its communications with social media companies related to combatting pandemic-era misinformation. 

Majority Opinion: Delivering the 6-3 majority’s opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that the plaintiffs challenging the Biden administration had not demonstrated “a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a Government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” thereby failing to establish standing. Thus, Barrett wrote, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was “wrong” to affirm “a sweeping preliminary injunction” against the Biden administration.

Alito’s Dissent: In a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that at least one plaintiff was “likely to prevail on her claim that the White House coerced Facebook into censoring her speech,” because White House officials “wielded potent authority” in their “virtual demands,” and “Facebook’s quavering responses to those demands show that it felt a strong need to yield.”

How the Media Covered It: Headlines from the right tended to label the case a “censorship case,” with the New York Post (Lean Right bias) highlighting Alito’s purportedly “fiery” dissent — potentially appealing to the emotions of conservative readers opposed to the decision. On the other hand, headlines from mainstream outlets on the left tended to frame the case as less controversial, simply noting “White House contacts with social media firms” — potentially aligning with liberal attitudes that communications between the White House and social media companies were appropriate.