The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Murthy v. Missouri (2024) takes place at a pivotal moment in American history. In this case, the Court declined to prevent the federal government from colluding with social media firms. This move raises the possibility of a crushing recurrence of state-sponsored cowardice better known as totalitarianism. The Murthy case sets an ominous precedent that reinforces Senator Mark Warner’s claim that it is absolutely essential for the federal government to communicate with social media companies to prevent malign foreign election interference. Shortly after the Court’s decision, the FBI announced that it was resuming coordination with social media firms to uncover alleged 2024 election interference. Given the behavior of the FBI and American intelligence officials during the 2016 and 2020 elections, most Americans should be worried about the return of the surveillance state’s ability to initiate domestic election interference.

Americans have consistently witnessed undeniable evidence of federal interference in our elections thus undermining our democracy. After all, the Department of Justice, days after closing its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal in 2016, initiated an investigation — Crossfire Hurricane — focused on false claims that Donald Trump was a Russian agent during the 2016 election. This investigation triggered applications to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for wiretaps that arguably entrapped American citizens. Special Counsel John Durham, charged with investigating the breathlessly infuriating and oft-repeated claim that Pres. Trump was a Russian agent during the campaign, exonerated the 45th President of the United States. Additionally, Durham found that FBI and Justice Department investigators engaged in a politically and legally charged investigation based on uncorroborated intelligence. Moreover, the investigation proceeded at a speed that was a distinct departure from the norm. This investigation justifiably demolished the reputation of both the FBI and the Justice Department.

Similarly, the FBI collaborated with Facebook and other social media companies during the 2020 presidential election campaign. Such collaboration led to the suppression of an accurate New York Post report that revealed emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop. This story suggested that Biden while vice president had assisted his son’s business dealings in Ukraine. Despite the evidence, fifty-one intelligence officials, in a bid to secure Joe Biden’s election victory, falsely discredited the Post story. Suppressing a significant news story offers a stark reminder of the potential for information manipulation by domestic authorities.

While the Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to engage in free and open discourse, no matter how controversial the topic, the Court’s Murthy decision coupled with the Deep State’s behavior over the past two election cycles implicates individuals who engage in robust forms of speech. Such individuals could face baseless accusations that their social media posts are false, or a form of misinformation. This possibility appears to be consistent with the preferences of America’s ruling class elites like Senator Warner. In harmony with Warner’s preferences, the Brennan Center for Justice — an organization that claims to defend our elections and our democracy but arguably protects elite interest in suppressing certain kinds of speech — contends that if the Court vindicated the Free Speech rights of the plaintiffs in Murthy, such a decision would be disastrous for our democracy. Nothing would be further from the truth.

Since the Supreme Court’s decision failed to defend Americans’ First Amendment rights, our freedom of speech rights is under threat. In Murthy v. Missouri, two states and five individual social media users sued dozens of federal government officials and agencies, alleging that the government pressured social media platforms to censor speech. The government’s conduct arguably violated plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. This case highlights the urgent need to address the legal implications of government pressure on social media platforms. More specifically, during the so-called COVID epidemic, the Biden White House led an aggressive campaign to coerce Facebook and other social media platforms to remove alleged “misinformation” about COVID-19 and vaccine efficacy from their media sites. Justice Alito’s dissent in Murthy showed that the White House repeatedly harassed Facebook, demanding the deletion of offending posts. For example, White House Director of Digital Strategy, Rob Flaherty, emailed Facebook, asserting that the social media platform was one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy.

In addition, the White House claimed that Facebook was distributing misinformation and was not trying to solve the misinformation “problem.” Consequently, the government vigorously interrogated Facebook and threatened the firm with an examination of federal government’s (enforcement) options. Despite a long list of federal government threats, the Supreme Court majority held that the plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri lacked standing to bring this case alleging government coercion. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the litigation.

As a result of the Supreme Court’s failure to intervene in the Murthy case, the FBI and other federal agencies have resumed coordination with social media firms ahead of the 2024 election. Hence, Since the Federal Bureau of Investigation appears free to unleash its Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) on the American people. FBI local field offices will now be asked to build relationships and resume regular meetings with social media enterprises. Given the FBI’s well-deserved reputation for engaging in dubious activities, the prospect of future FBI interference in our elections coupled with the impending return of the surveillance state appears to be on the horizon.