The Supreme Court seems likely to reject a Republican-led effort that could reshape how politicians communicate with major social media companies — with sweeping consequences for government efforts to secure elections and combat health misinformation.
A majority of justices from across the ideological spectrum expressed concern about hamstringing federal government communications with social media platforms on issues such as public health, national security and elections.
In at times tense exchanges, the court’s liberal justices have pushed back on arguments from Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, who argued the federal government violated the First Amendment in frequent, secretive communications with Silicon Valley.
“I have such a problem with your brief, counselor. You omit information that changes the context of some of your claims. You attribute things to people who it didn’t happen to,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. “I don’t know what to make of all this.”
Brian Fletcher, the principal deputy solicitor general of the United States, argued that the government was legally using its bully pulpit to protect the American public. He warned that overly broad limits on the government’s communications with tech companies could harm efforts to protect national security or children’s mental health.
Throughout the proceedings, justices grappled with when the communications crossed the line into illegal coercion.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. quipped that he has “no experience coercing anybody,” drawing laughs in the room.
Key updates
The lawsuit and other litigation targeting programs intended to combat misinformation have already chilled a host of efforts to debunk falsehoods about elections and public health. The U.S. government has stopped warning some social networks about foreign disinformation campaigns on their platforms — reversing a years-long approach, according to officials from Meta and Pinterest.
A majority of justices from across the ideological spectrum expressed concern about hamstringing federal government communications with social media platforms on issues such as public health, national security and elections.
In at times tense exchanges, the court’s liberal justices have pushed back on arguments from Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, who argued the federal government violated the First Amendment in frequent, secretive communications with Silicon Valley.
“I have such a problem with your brief, counselor. You omit information that changes the context of some of your claims. You attribute things to people who it didn’t happen to,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. “I don’t know what to make of all this.”
Brian Fletcher, the principal deputy solicitor general of the United States, argued that the government was legally using its bully pulpit to protect the American public. He warned that overly broad limits on the government’s communications with tech companies could harm efforts to protect national security or children’s mental health.
Throughout the proceedings, justices grappled with when the communications crossed the line into illegal coercion.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. quipped that he has “no experience coercing anybody,” drawing laughs in the room.
Key updates
- Supreme Court likely to reject limits on White House social media contacts
- A 1963 case involving booksellers could be a road map for court
Here's what to know
Lower courts have placed restrictions on the communications of the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other government agencies with Silicon Valley. In September, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the White House, top government health officials and the FBI violated the First Amendment by improperly influencing tech companies.The lawsuit and other litigation targeting programs intended to combat misinformation have already chilled a host of efforts to debunk falsehoods about elections and public health. The U.S. government has stopped warning some social networks about foreign disinformation campaigns on their platforms — reversing a years-long approach, according to officials from Meta and Pinterest.
