Supreme Court rules Murthy v. Missouri plaintiffs lack standing

In a 6–3 decision authored by Justice Barrett, the Supreme Court held that two states and five social-media users lacked Article III standing to seek an injunction against federal officials they accused of pressuring platforms to censor speech about COVID-19 and elections. The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and did not reach the merits of whether the government's contacts amounted to unconstitutional coercion, while noting the record showed platforms 'had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment.' Justice Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, dissented, arguing the plaintiffs had shown government pressure on Facebook.