On June 26, 2024, the United States Supreme Court took the side of the Biden regime in a dispute with Republican-controlled states over the degree that the federal government can go to fight polemical social posts concerning topics that span the Wuhan virus all the way to election integrity. 

In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court overturned lower-court rulings that took the side of Louisiana, Missouri and other parties in their assertion that federal officials jaw-boned social media platforms to unconstitutionally censor conservative points of view.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion for the court that the states and other parties did not possess the legal right, or standing, to file a lawsuit. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas offered dissenting opinions.

The states contended that White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI and the US cybersecurity agency are among those who placed “unrelenting pressure” to impose changes in online content on social media platforms.

The justices appeared to be largely skeptical of those assertions during arguments in March and several were concerned that regular interactions between government officials and the platforms could be impacted by a ruling for the states.

The Biden regime highlighted those concerns when it called attention to how government would lose its power to communicate with social media companies about allegedly antisemitic and anti-Muslim posts, in addition to issues concerning election integrity, national security, and public health.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill described the decision as “unfortunate and disappointing.” The court majority, Murrill declared in a statement, “gives a free pass to the federal government to threaten tech platforms into censorship and suppression of speech that is indisputably protected by the First Amendment. The majority waves off the worst government coercion scheme in history.”

“We begin — and end — with standing,” Justice Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. “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.”

In a dissenting opinion, Alito wrote that the states sufficiently demonstrated their right to file a lawsuit. “For months, high-ranking government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech. Because the court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent,” he wrote for the dissenting judges. 

The case in question is Murthy v. Missouri, 23-411.

Social media is the private arm of the managerial state. When the state can’t suppress free speech, it will “privatize” this tyranny to corporate actors. It’s going to take strong right-wing action to ensure that the public and private sectors are put in their respective places. If we want to preserve order and freedom, decisive action is needed.