TheSupreme Courtsided with the White House in a challenge to the administrations efforts to curb disinformation onsocial media.
Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.
Holocaust Museum’s Board
Barrett put particular emphasis on causation.
Getty Images
And the platforms continued to exercise their independent judgment even after communications with the defendants began.
Read the social media opinion.
A district court injunction was modified to limit the governments interactions with social media platforms.
The plaintiffs rely on allegations of past Government censorship as evidence that future censorship is likely.
The justices pointed to faults in a number of arguments of the defendants.
Hofts post was titled Wheres Hunter?
How is Hunter Celebrating the New Year?
New Photos of Hunter Biden Pushing Drugs on Women Emerge.
It is unclear why Jim Hoft would have standing to sue for his brothers injury, the justice wrote.
Alito cited President Joe Bidens claim that social media platforms were killing people as misinformation spread.
Days later, he backed away from the criticism.
Not surprisingly these efforts bore fruit.
