Putz.

Eric Schmitt (r) [2022 file photo].

Today at the U.S. Supreme Court:

[….]

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 23–411 [pdf]
VIVEK H. MURTHY, SURGEON GENERAL, ET AL.,
PETITIONERS v. MISSOURI, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
[June 26, 2024]

JUSTICE BARRETT delivered the opinion of the Court.

During the 2020 election season and the COVID–19 pandemic, social-media platforms frequently removed, demoted, or fact checked posts containing allegedly false or misleading information. At the same time, federal officials, concerned about the spread of “misinformation” on social media, communicated extensively with the platforms about their content-moderation efforts.

The plaintiffs, two States and five social-media users, sued dozens of Executive Branch officials and agencies, alleging that they pressured the platforms to suppress protected speech in violation of the First Amendment. The Fifth Circuit agreed, concluding that the officials’ communications rendered them responsible for the private platforms’ moderation decisions. It then affirmed a sweeping preliminary injunction.

The Fifth Circuit was wrong to do so. To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate 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. Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.

[….]

We begin—and end—with standing. At this stage, neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. We therefore lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of the dispute.

[….]

The plaintiffs claim standing based on the “direct censorship” of their own speech as well as their “right to listen” to others who faced social-media censorship. Brief for Respondents 19, 22. Notably, both theories depend on the platform’s actions—yet the plaintiffs do not seek to enjoin the platforms from restricting any posts or accounts. They seek to enjoin Government agencies and officials from pressuring or encouraging the platforms to suppress protected speech in the future.

[….]

Louisiana and Missouri. The state plaintiffs devote minimal attention to restriction of their own social-media content, much less to a causal link between any such restriction and the actions of any Government defendant. They refer only to Facebook’s “flagg[ing] . . . and deboost[ing]” of a Louisiana state representative’s post about children and the COVID–19 vaccine. Brief for Respondents 20; App. 635–636. We need not decide whether an injury to a state representative counts as an injury to the State, because evidence of causation is lacking.5 The States assert only that in November 2021, Facebook, “as a result of [its] work [with the CDC],” updated its policies “to remove additional false claims about the COVID–19 vaccine for children.” 37 Record 11,457. But they never say when Facebook took action against the official’s post—and a causal link is possible only if the removal occurred after Facebook’s communication with the CDC. There is therefore no evidence to support the States’ allegation that Facebook restricted the state representative pursuant to the CDC-influenced policy.

[….]

The state plaintiffs, claiming their own version of the “right to listen” theory, assert a sovereign interest in hearing from their citizens on social media. See 83 F. 4th, at 372–373. But this theory suffers from the same flaws as the individual plaintiffs’ theory. The States have not identified any specific speakers or topics that they have been unable to hear or follow.

The States cite this supposed sovereign injury as a basis for asserting third-party standing on behalf of “the citizens they would listen to.” Brief for Respondents 30. But “[t]his argument is a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent the limits on parens patriae standing.” Brackeen, 599 U. S., at 295, n. 11. Namely, States do not have “‘standing as parens patriae to bring an action against the Federal Government.’ ” Id., at 295.

The States, like the individual plaintiffs, have failed to establish a likelihood of standing.

[….]

Eric Schmitt’s (r) waste of money and time lost today, 6-3, in a right wingnut dominated Supreme Court.

That tells us all everything we need to know.