The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Biden, rejecting GOP claims that Democrats forced social media companies to eliminate conservative views.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices overturned lower court rulings that favored Louisiana, Missouri and other groups on their claims that Democratic administration officials relied on social media to unconstitutionally suppress public opinion.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court that the states and other parties had no legal right, or standing, to sue. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The decision should not affect ordinary social media users or their posts.

This case is one of several before the court in this case that affects social media companies in the context of free speech. In February, the court heard arguments over laws passed by Republicans in Florida and Texas that prevent major social media companies from taking down posts because of the views they express. In March, the court set guidelines for when government officials can block their followers on social media.

The state law suits and the one decided on Wednesday are variations on the same theme, which are complaints that the platforms consider conservative views.

The states have indicated that the White House communications staff, the surgeon general, the FBI and the US Cyber ​​Security Agency are among those who have exerted “relentless pressure” to force changes in online content on social media.

The justices appeared highly skeptical of those claims during arguments in March, and many worried that normal interactions between federal officials and the courts could be affected by the states’ decision.

The Biden administration underscored those concerns when it noted that the government would lose its ability to contact social media companies about anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim posts, as well as issues of national security, public health and election integrity.

The press secretary at the White House, Karine Jean-Pierre, said the court reached the right result because “it helps to ensure that the Biden Administration can continue our important work with technology companies to protect the safety and security of the American people, after years of extreme and baseless Republican attacks.” to the public officials who have done the critical work of keeping the American people safe.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill called the decision “unfortunate and disappointing.” The court’s majority, Murrill said in a statement, “gives free rein to the federal government to threaten technology platforms to monitor and suppress speech that is indisputably protected by the First Amendment. The majority is striking down the worst government enforcement program in history.”

The justices did not consider the substance of the states’ claims or the administration’s response in their decision Wednesday.

“We start – and end – with a stop,” Barrett wrote. “Currently, no one or the prosecutors of the state has stepped up to obtain a restraining order against any of the defendants. We therefore have no jurisdiction to reach the point of contention.”

In dissent, Alito wrote that the states had properly demonstrated their right to sue. “For months, top government officials put relentless pressure on Facebook to stifle the American people’s free speech. “Because the court unjustifiably refuses to address this grave threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent,” he wrote to the three justices in the small group.

Some free speech advocates applauded the outcome, but complained that the court provided too little guidance.

“Forums are attractive targets for legal pressure, so it’s important for the Supreme Court to clarify the line between valid coercive efforts and impermissible coercive efforts,” said Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. “This guidance would have been particularly useful in the months leading up to the election.”

The Supreme Court had previously taken action to stay the decisions of the lower court. Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas would allow restrictions on government communications and platforms to go into effect.

Free speech advocates urged the court to use the case to draw a fine line between the government’s acceptable use of the bully pulpit and coercive threats to free speech.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans had previously ruled that the Biden administration may have brought unconstitutional pressure on the media. The appeals panel said officials cannot try to “force or strongly encourage” changes to online content. The team had earlier scaled back a tough federal judge’s order, which sought to include more government officials and prohibit the promotion of content reforms.

The ruling was the sixth time the court has overturned decisions by the 5th Circuit, one of the country’s most conservative appellate courts. Last week, the court upheld a gun ban intended to protect victims of domestic violence, overturning a panel of the 5th Circuit.

Earlier in June, the court ruled unanimously that anti-abortionists had no standing to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s decisions to ease access to the abortion drug mifepristone.

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