Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 33

28 

MURTHY v. MISSOURI 

Opinion of the Court 

have identified a cognizable injury only where the listener 
has  a  concrete,  specific  connection  to  the  speaker. 
Kleindienst  v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753, 762 (1972).  For in-
stance, in Mandel, we agreed that a group of professors had 
a First Amendment interest in challenging the visa denial 
of a person they had invited to speak at a conference.  Id., 
at 762–765.  And in Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia 
Citizens  Consumer  Council,  Inc.,  we  concluded  that  pre-
scription-drug  consumers  had  an  interest  in  challenging 
the prohibition on advertising the price of those drugs.  425 
U. S. 748, 756–757 (1976). 

Attempting to satisfy this requirement, the plaintiffs em-
phasize that hearing unfettered speech on social media is 
critical  to  their  work  as  scientists,  pundits,  and  activists. 
But  they  do  not  point  to  any  specific  instance  of  content
moderation that caused them identifiable harm.  They have
therefore  failed  to  establish  an  injury  that  is  sufficiently
“concrete and particularized.”  Lujan, 504 U. S., at 560. 

The  state  plaintiffs,  claiming  their  own  version  of  the 
“right to listen” theory, assert a sovereign interest in hear-
ing  from  their  citizens  on  social  media.    See  83  F. 4th,  at 
372–373.  But  this  theory  suffers  from  the  same  flaws  as
the individual plaintiffs’ theory.  The States have not iden-
tified  any  specific  speakers  or  topics  that  they  have  been 
unable to hear or follow. 

The States cite this supposed sovereign injury as a basis
for asserting third-party standing on behalf of “the citizens
they would listen to.”  Brief for Respondents 30.  But “[t]his 
argument is a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent the lim-
its on parens patriae standing.”  Brackeen, 599 U. S., at 295, 
n. 11.  Namely, States do not have “ ‘standing as parens pa-
triae to bring an action against the Federal Government.’ ” 
Id., at 295. 

The  States,  like  the  individual  plaintiffs,  have  failed  to 

establish a likelihood of standing.