Justice Samuel Alito explodes in his dissent after Supreme Court rejects social media case

WASHINGTON, DC: The Supreme Court on Wednesday, June 26, rejected challenges to the Biden administration officials' communications with social media companies aimed at combating online misinformation during Covid-19.

The six-three decision found that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring the case.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, sharply criticized the majority decision in his dissent, accusing the Biden administration of coercing social media companies.

Samuel Alito says the case cannot be dismissed as 'mere persuasion'

The majority opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, avoided addressing the First Amendment issues raised by the plaintiffs. Alito argued that the court failed to fulfill its duty by not addressing the merits of the free speech issue.

“The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think,” Alito wrote, according to The Hill, adding “That is regrettable.”

Alito contended that the government’s pressure on Facebook to moderate misinformation went beyond mere persuasion.

“The Government’s pressure tactics, which included threats of adverse regulatory action, cannot be dismissed as mere persuasion,” he wrote.

“This ruling effectively grants the government a free pass to continue its campaign of suppression, threatening the foundational principles of free expression,” Alito added.

Samuel Alito says White House 'suppressed  valuable speech' 

The lawsuit originated from Republican state attorneys' general and private plaintiffs who argued that the Biden administration’s communications with social media platforms amounted to unconstitutional censorship.

Alito was critical of how the White House officials interacted with Facebook. “For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech,” Alito wrote.

"Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent," he said.

Alito acknowledged that much of the content related to Covid-19 might have been of little value or even harmful, but he insisted that important speech was also suppressed.

“I assume that a fair portion of what social media users had to say about Covid-19 and the pandemic was of little lasting value,” Alito wrote in his dissent.

"Some was undoubtedly untrue or misleading, and some may have been downright dangerous. But we now know that valuable speech was also suppressed," he added.

Alito stressed the importance of this case, indicating its potential impact on free speech. “If the lower courts’ assessment of the voluminous record is correct, this is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years,” he wrote.

Internet furious at Supreme court's ruling in social media case 

The Biden administration defended its actions, arguing that it only encouraged social media platforms to moderate content and did not cross into unconstitutional coercion.

Alito rejected this defense, stating that Facebook's response to the administration’s urgings resembled that of a "subservient entity."

“White House officials browbeat Facebook into deleting posts, and the platform’s response resembled that of a subservient entity determined to stay in the good graces of a powerful taskmaster,” Alito wrote.

One user on X wrote, "God bless Justice Alito," while another commented, "Social media has too much control and needs to be regulated more when it comes to free speech!"

Other reactions included, "An awful ruling by the Supreme Court. RIP America’s First Amendment," and "SCOTUS is ushering this country into a totalitarian dystopia!"

One reacted over the ruling, "This was a horrible decision and a sad day for free speech!". One more added, " It will be a disaster."

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.