Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 27.0

22 

MURTHY v. MISSOURI 

Opinion of the Court 

Friends  of  the  Earth,  Inc.  v.  Laidlaw  Environmental  Ser-
vices (TOC), Inc., 528 U. S. 167, 190 (2000).  At the prelim-
inary injunction stage, the plaintiffs must show that they 
are likely to succeed in carrying that burden.  See Winter, 
555 U. S., at 22.  But without proof of an ongoing pressure 
campaign, it is entirely speculative that the platforms’ fu-
ture moderation decisions will be attributable, even in part,
to the defendants. 

The plaintiffs treat the defendants as a monolith, claim-
ing  broadly  that  “ ‘the  governmen[t]’ ”  continues  to  com-
municate with the platforms about “ ‘content-moderation is-
sues.’ ”  Brief for Respondents 29 (quoting 83 F. 4th, at 369). 
But we must confirm that each Government defendant con-
tinues to engage in the challenged conduct, which is “coer-
cion” and “significant encouragement,” not mere “communi-
cation.”  Plus, the plaintiffs have only explicitly identified 
an  interest  in  speaking  about  COVID–19  or  elections—so
the  defendants’  discussions  about  content-moderation  is-
sues must focus on those topics. 

We begin with the plaintiffs who have not pointed to any
past restrictions likely traceable to the Government defend-
ants.  This failure to establish traceability for past harms—
which can serve as evidence of expected future harm—“sub-
stantially  undermines  [the  plaintiffs’]  standing  theory.” 
Clapper, 568 U. S., at 411.  These plaintiffs (i.e., everyone
other than Hines) are thus particularly ill suited to the task
of establishing their standing to seek forward-looking relief.
Take Hoft, the only plaintiff who has expressed interest 
in speaking about elections (and thus the only plaintiff with
potential  standing  to  sue  the  FBI  and  CISA).  The  FBI’s 
challenged  conduct  was  ongoing  at  the  time  of  the  com-
plaint, as the agency worked with the platforms during the 
2022  midterm  election  season.  Still,  Hoft  must  rely  on  a
“speculative chain of possibilities” to establish a likelihood 
of future harm traceable to the FBI.  Id., at 414.  Hoft’s fu-