Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito criticized the majority decision on a free speech case involving the White House and social media companies. He, along with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, dissented from the majority’s ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring speech-related claims to the court. The case involved allegations that the Biden administration coerced social media platforms to moderate certain election-related content and COVID-19 posts.
Justice Alito argued that there was enough evidence for one of the plaintiffs to have standing, and the court should have addressed the free speech issue presented in the case. He warned that the majority’s decision could set a dangerous precedent for government officials looking to control speech. Alito referenced a similar case involving the National Rifle Association, where the court found that New York state violated the First Amendment by pressuring companies to cut ties with the gun rights group.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the administration’s communications with social media companies constituted coercion that violated the First Amendment. The court cited specific examples of interactions between White House officials and Facebook, where the platform made changes to its moderation policies in response to government pressure.
Justice Alito criticized Facebook for appearing subservient to the government’s demands, rather than acting as an independent news source. He pointed to internal emails that showed Facebook’s compliance with the administration’s requests. Despite the government’s argument that it was entitled to inform, persuade, or criticize private speakers, Alito disagreed and emphasized that the administration’s actions went beyond persuasion into coercion.
Overall, Justice Alito’s dissent highlighted the potential dangers of allowing government officials to influence social media platforms’ content moderation policies. He argued that the court missed an opportunity to address a critical free speech issue and warned against setting a precedent that could undermine the First Amendment rights of individuals and organizations.
