Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

13 

Opinion of the Court 

The Fifth Circuit also erred by treating the defendants,
plaintiffs, and platforms each as a unified whole.  Our deci-
sions make clear that “standing is not dispensed in gross.” 
TransUnion  LLC  v.  Ramirez,  594  U. S.  413,  431  (2021). 
That  is,  “plaintiffs  must  demonstrate  standing  for  each 
claim that they press” against each defendant, “and for each
form of relief that they seek.”  Ibid.  Here, for every defend-
ant,  there  must  be  at  least  one  plaintiff  with  standing  to 
seek an injunction.  This requires a certain threshold show-
ing: namely, that a particular defendant pressured a par-
ticular platform to censor a particular topic before that plat-
form  suppressed  a  particular  plaintiff ’s  speech  on  that  
topic.

Heeding  these  conditions  is  critically  important  in  a
sprawling suit like this one.  The plaintiffs faced speech re-
strictions on different platforms, about different topics, at 

—————— 
715 (WD La. 2023).  But much of its evidence is inapposite.  For instance, 
the court says that Twitter set up a “streamlined process for censorship 
requests”  after  the  White  House  “bombarded”  it  with  such  requests. 
Ibid., n. 662 (internal quotation marks omitted).  The record it cites says 
nothing about “censorship requests.”  See App. 639–642.  Rather, in re-
sponse to a White House official asking Twitter to remove an imperson-
ation account of President Biden’s granddaughter, Twitter told the offi-
cial about a portal that he could use to flag similar issues.  Ibid.  This 
has nothing to do with COVID–19 misinformation.  The court also found 
that  “[a]  drastic  increase  in  censorship  . . .  directly  coincided  with  De-
fendants’  public  calls  for  censorship  and  private  demands  for  censor-
ship.”  680 F. Supp. 3d, at 715.  As to the “calls for censorship,” the court’s 
proof included statements from Members of Congress, who are not par-
ties to this suit.  Ibid., and n. 658.  Some of the evidence of the “increase 
in censorship” reveals that Facebook worked with the CDC to update its 
list of removable false claims, but these examples do not suggest that the 
agency “demand[ed]” that it do so.  Ibid.  Finally, the court, echoing the 
plaintiffs’ proposed statement of facts, erroneously stated that Facebook 
agreed  to  censor  content  that  did  not  violate  its  policies.    Id.,  at  714, 
n. 655.  Instead,  on  several occasions,  Facebook  explained  that  certain 
content did not qualify for removal under its policies but did qualify for 
other forms of moderation.