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]