Murthy v. Missouri
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Murthy v. Missouri and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Murthy v. Missouri.
In Murthy v. Missouri, the Supreme Court addressed whether state and individual plaintiffs had standing to seek an injunction against federal officials for allegedly pressuring social media platforms to suppress speech. The case arose from actions taken by social media companies to moderate content related to COVID-19 and the 2020 election. The Fifth Circuit had partially affirmed a preliminary injunction, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate the necessary standing under Article III.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Murthy v. Missouri.
The Court held that neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any federal defendant.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Murthy v. Missouri. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Free Speech is relevant to Murthy v. Missouri
The case involves allegations that the government pressured social media platforms to censor speech, which implicates the First Amendment's protection of free speech.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)alleging that the Government pressured the platforms to censor their speech in violation of the First Amendment.
-
Why Due Process is relevant to Murthy v. Missouri
The case discusses the procedural aspects of standing and the requirements for a case or controversy, which are related to due process considerations.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Article III's 'case or controversy' requirement is 'fundamental' to the 'proper role' of the Judiciary.
-
Why Federalism is relevant to Murthy v. Missouri
The involvement of state plaintiffs against federal officials touches on the balance of power between state and federal governments.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Respondents are two States and five individual social-media users who sued dozens of Executive Branch officials and agencies.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Murthy v. Missouri that support the summary and concepts above.
Article III's 'case or controversy' requirement is 'fundamental' to the 'proper role' of the Judiciary.
The plaintiffs must show a substantial risk that, in the near future, at least one platform will restrict the speech of at least one plaintiff in response to the actions of at least one Government defendant.
The plaintiffs 'cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.'