What the courts actually decided

On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the Missouri plaintiffs had not established standing for their requested preliminary injunction. The majority required links between particular officials, platforms, moderation decisions, and likely future harm. It stressed that platforms also had independent reasons to moderate. That defeated the injunction on this record; the Court did not reach the First Amendment merits. [1]

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, dissented. He saw coercion and a sufficiently traceable injury. His account is part of the published opinion, but it is not the holding of the Court. Quoting it as the majority’s findings reverses the result. [1]

The legal concern itself is real. In the separate NRA v. Vullo case the same term, the Court unanimously held that alleged regulatory threats against the NRA’s business partners plausibly stated a First Amendment claim. That was a pleading-stage decision assuming well-pleaded allegations true, not a Twitter finding. Government persuasion and government coercion must be distinguished in context. [2]

The story did not end in 2024. On March 25, 2026, Judge Terry Doughty entered a ten-year Missouri v. Biden consent decree. It bars the Surgeon General, CDC, and CISA from threatening penalties to suppress covered protected speech, or unilaterally directing or vetoing moderation decisions. But its injunction is limited to the plaintiffs’ content; it expressly permits supplying information platforms remain free to use, and nonthreatening government criticism. [1]

The decree incorporates the Trump administration’s condemnation of earlier practices. It also says that, except as expressly stated, settlement is not evidence or an admission on disputed law or facts. A court-enforceable negotiated restriction is substantial; describing it as a trial judgment proving every alleged censorship incident would go further than the document. DOJ also announced a settlement in Children’s Health Defense v. Biden. [1][2]

A separate April 8, 2026 Daily Wire v. State Department decree restricts specified government use, funding, and promotion of technologies aimed at suppressing protected American speech. It runs until January 31, 2036, limits who may enforce it, and preserves lawful criminal/national-security work and government speech. Its definition of fact-checking excludes crowdsourced tools such as Community Notes. These are specific negotiated outcomes, not a universal verdict against all fact-checking. [3]