The 6-3 opinion was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

Barrett, writing for the majority, said two Republican-led states and five individual users lacked standing to sue the government because they could not show that the government outreach directly resulted in censorship of their views.

“The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the years-long communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics,” she wrote. “This Court’s standing doctrine prevents us from ‘exercis[ing such] general legal oversight’ of the other branches of Government.”

  • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    This feels like a great example of the court hiding behind the standing doctrine to avoid making a ruling. Essentially this ruling allows sufficiently convoluted process to violate arbitrary rights.

    This really needs a ruling that methods and requests that follow a.b.c. are permissible and other methods are not permissible.