Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 42

8 

MURTHY v. MISSOURI 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

“actions  and  changes”  Facebook  was  taking  “to  ensure
you’re not making our country’s vaccine hesitancy problem 
worse.”  Id., at 9371.  To emphasize his urgency, Flaherty
likened COVID–19 misinformation to misinformation that 
led to the January 6 attack on the Capitol.  Ibid.  Facebook, 
he charged, had helped to “increase skepticism” of the 2020 
election, and he claimed that “an insurrection . . . was plot-
ted,  in  large  part,  on  your  platform.”    Ibid.  He  added:  “I 
want some assurances, based in data, that you are not do-
ing the same thing again here.”  Ibid.  Facebook was sur-
prised by these remarks because it “thought we were doing
a better job” communicating with the White House, but it 
promised to “more clearly respon[d]” in the future.  Ibid. 

The next week, Facebook officers spoke with Slavitt and 
Flaherty  about  reports  of  a  rare  blood  clot  caused  by  the
Johnson & Johnson vaccine.  Id., at 9385.  The conversation 
quickly shifted when the White House noticed that one of 
the most-viewed vaccine-related posts from the past week 
was a Tucker Carlson video questioning the efficacy of the 
Johnson & Johnson vaccine.  Id., at 9376, 9388.  Facebook 
informed  the  White  House  that  the  video  did not  “qualify 
for removal under our policies” and thus would be demoted 
instead,  ibid.,  but  that  answer  did  not  please  Flaherty.
“How  was  this  not  violative?”  he  queried,  and  “[w]hat  ex-
actly  is  the  rule  for  removal  vs  demoting?”    Id.,  at  9387. 
Then, for the second time in a week, he invoked the January 
6 attack: “Not for nothing, but last time we did this dance, 
it ended in an insurrection.”  Id., at 9388.  When Facebook 
did  not  respond  promptly,  he  made  his  demand  more  ex-
plicit: “These questions weren’t rhetorical.”  Id., at 9387. 

If repeated accusations that Facebook aided an insurrec-
tion did not sufficiently convey the White House’s displeas-
ure, Flaherty and Slavitt made sure to do so by phone.7  In 

—————— 

7 Notes  recounting  these  calls  were  released  by  the  House  Judiciary 
Committee  after  the  District  Court  entered  the  preliminary  injunction