Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 52.0

18 

MURTHY v. MISSOURI 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

that the failure of some aliens to respond to the census was 
“likely attributable” to the Government’s introduction of a 
citizenship question.  Id., at 768. 

This is not a demanding standard, and Hines made the
requisite showing—with room to spare.  Recall that officials 
from the White House and Surgeon General’s Office repeat-
edly  hectored  and  implicitly  threatened  Facebook  to  sup-
press speech expressing the viewpoint that Hines espoused. 
See supra, at 6–15.  Censorship of Hines was the “predicta-
ble  effect”  of  these efforts.    Department  of  Commerce,  588 
U. S., at 768.  Or, to put the point in different terms, Face-
book would “likely react in predictable ways” to this unre-
lenting pressure.  Ibid. 

This  alone  was  sufficient  to  show  traceability,  but  here 
there  is  even  more  direct  proof.  On  numerous  occasions, 
the White House officials successfully pushed Facebook to 
tighten its censorship policies, see supra, at 7, 10, 13, and 
those policies had implications for Hines.15  First, in March 

—————— 

15 The Court discounts this evidence because Hines did not draw the 
same links in her briefing.  See ante, at 20, n. 7.  But we have an “inde-
pendent obligation” to assess standing, Summers v. Earth Island Insti-
tute, 555 U. S. 488, 499 (2009), and a “virtually unflagging obligation” to 
exercise our jurisdiction if standing exists, Colorado River Water Conser-
vation  Dist. v. United  States,  424  U. S.  800,  817  (1976).    “[A]  case  like 
this  one,  where  the  record  spans  over  26,000  pages”  and  the  plaintiffs
have provided numerous facts, deserves some scrutiny before we simply
brush standing aside.  Ante, at 20, n. 7. 

As it happens, Hines has said enough to establish standing.  First, she 
says that, at the behest of the White House, Facebook announced new 
measures to combat misinformation about COVID–19 and the vaccines. 
Second,  she  says  that  her  Facebook  pages  fell  under  those  policies.
Third,  she  says  that  she  suffered  the  penalties  imposed  by  Facebook,
such as demotion of her posts and pages.  See 4 Record 1315; 78 id., at 
25503.    She  may  not  explicitly  say  that  the  policy  changes  caused  the 
penalties she experienced.  But what theory makes more sense—that a 
user  falling  within  Facebook’s  amended  policies  was  censored  under
those policies or that something else caused her injury?