Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 3

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

3 

Syllabus 

platforms’  moderation  choices,  the  evidence  indicates  that  the  plat-
forms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exer-
cised their own judgment.  The Fifth Circuit, by attributing every plat-
form  decision  at  least  in  part  to  the  defendants,  glossed  over
complexities in the evidence.  The Fifth Circuit also erred by treating 
the defendants, plaintiffs, and platforms each as a unified whole.  Be-
cause  “standing  is  not  dispensed  in  gross,”  TransUnion  LLC  v. 
Ramirez, 594 U. S. 413, 431, “plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for
each claim they press” against each defendant, “and for each form of
relief they seek,” ibid.  This requires a threshold showing that a par-
ticular defendant pressured a particular platform to censor a particu-
lar topic before that platform suppressed a particular plaintiff’s speech 
on that topic.  Complicating the plaintiffs’ effort to demonstrate that 
each platform acted due to Government coercion, rather than its own 
judgment, is the fact that the platforms began to suppress the plain-
tiffs’ COVID–19 content before the defendants’ challenged communi-
cations started.  Pp. 10–14.

(2) The plaintiffs fail, by and large, to link their past social-media
restrictions and the defendants’ communications with the platforms. 
The state plaintiffs, Louisiana and Missouri, refer only to action taken
by Facebook against a Louisiana state representative’s post about chil-
dren and the COVID–19 vaccine.  But they never say when Facebook 
took action against the official’s post—a critical fact in establishing a 
causal link.  Nor have the three plaintiff doctors established a likeli-
hood  that  their  past  restrictions  are  traceable  to  either  the  White 
House  officials  or  the  CDC.    They  highlight  restrictions  imposed  by 
Twitter  and  LinkedIn,  but  point  only  to  Facebook’s  communications 
with White House officials.  Plaintiff Jim Hoft, who runs a news web-
site, experienced election-related restrictions on various platforms.  He 
points to the FBI’s role in the platforms’ adoption of hacked-material
policies  and  claims  that  Twitter  restricted  his  content  pursuant  to 
those policies.  Yet Hoft’s declaration reveals that Twitter took action 
according  to  its  own  rules  against  posting  private,  intimate  media 
without consent.  Hoft does not provide evidence that his past injuries 
are  likely  traceable  to  the  FBI  or  CISA.    Plaintiff  Jill  Hines,  a 
healthcare activist, faced COVID–19-related restrictions on Facebook. 
Though she makes the best showing of all the plaintiffs, most of the
lines she draws are tenuous.  Plus, Facebook started targeting her con-
tent before almost all of its communications with the White House and 
the  CDC,  thus  weakening  the  inference  that  her  subsequent  re-
strictions  are  likely  traceable  to  Government-coerced  enforcement  of 
Facebook’s policies.  Even assuming Hines can eke out a showing of 
traceability, the past is relevant only insofar as it predicts the future. 
Pp. 14–21.