The File
Murthy v. Missouri examined whether federal officials coordinated with social media platforms to suppress disfavored views. The Supreme Court's June 2024 decision turned on standing rather than the underlying conduct, but Justice Alito's dissent, joined by two other justices, described what two lower courts had already found: a coordinated campaign by high-level federal officials to suppress disfavored views on platforms that serve as the primary news source for many Americans.
The Documented Record
The Supreme Court decided Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. 43, in 2024. [DOCUMENTED]
Justice Alito's dissent stated the case concerned what two lower courts had found to be a coordinated campaign by high-level federal officials to suppress the expression of disfavored views on social media platforms that now serve as the primary source of news about important public issues for many Americans. [DOCUMENTED]
The dissent cited the Fifth Circuit's decision in Missouri v. Biden as the source of the "coordinated campaign" characterization the lower courts had reached. [DOCUMENTED]
What the Record Does Not Establish
The Supreme Court's majority opinion resolved the case on standing grounds, meaning the record does not establish a controlling ruling on the underlying merits of whether the government's conduct violated the First Amendment. The dissent's characterization of a coordinated campaign reflects the lower courts' findings, not an independent finding by the Supreme Court majority itself. What is documented is that two lower courts reached that finding, and three justices treated it as significant enough to dissent over the majority's decision not to reach it.
Sources
- Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. 43, Supreme Court of the United States, 2024
- Murthy v. Missouri, Alito dissent, Supreme Court of the United States, 2024
Connected Files
NAR-001 and NAR-008 document specific instances of the platform-suppression pattern this case examined.