The States, Missouri and Louisiana, claim that the platforms have suppressed the speech of state entities and officials, as well as their citizens’ speech. Though the platforms restricted the plaintiffs’ …

Murthy v. Missouri concerned whether the federal government’s involvement in influencing content moderation choices at private social media companies, such as Facebook, YouTube, and X (formerly …

Holding: Respondents, two states and five individual social media users who sued executive branch officials and agencies, alleging that the government pressured the platforms to censor their speech in …

Jun 27, 2024 · In the landmark case of MURTHY, SURGEON GENERAL, et al. v. MISSOURI et al., decided on June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States addressed critical issues at the …

Mar 18, 2024 · Respondents—two States and five individual social-media users who sued Executive Branch officials and agencies, alleging that the Government pressured the platforms to censor their …

Jun 26, 2024 · The Court reaffirmed the longstanding test for Article III standing – requiring plaintiffs to show a concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent injury that is fairly traceable to the …

Oct 14, 2023 · Following extensive discovery, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that both the state plaintiffs and the …

The Court heard oral argument on March 18, 2024. [30] The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 26, 2024. The 6–3 majority determined that neither the states nor other respondents had standing …

Missouri argued that while the platforms themselves censored their speech, the officials were the ones who coerced and threatened platforms through private communications to violate the Respondents’ …

Jun 26, 2024 · In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Barrett, the Supreme Court concluded that none of the plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri had Article III standing to seek an injunction barring federal...