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

18 

MURTHY v. MISSOURI 

Opinion of the Court 

mendations for groups with a history of COVID–19 or vac-
cine  misinformation.”    54  Record  16,870–16,871.    A  week 
later,  Facebook  replied  that  it  had  “already  removed  all 
health  groups  from  our  recommendation  feature.”    App.
716.  It  is  hard  to  know  what  to  make  of  this.  Facebook 
reported  that  it  had  already  acted,  which  tends  to  imply 
that Facebook made its decision independently of the White 
House.  Moreover, Facebook and the White House commu-
nicated about removing groups from recommendation fea-
tures, not deleting them altogether—further weakening the
inference  that  Facebook  was  implementing  White  House 
policy rather than its own.6 

Next, in April 2023, Facebook gave Hines a warning after 
she  reposted  content  from  Robert  F.  Kennedy,  Jr.  Two 
years earlier, White House officials had pushed Facebook to 
remove the accounts of the “disinformation dozen,” 12 peo-
ple  (including  Kennedy)  supposedly  responsible  for  a  ma-
jority of COVID–19-related misinformation.  Hines tries to 
link the warning she received to this earlier White House 
pressure.  Again, though, the link is weak.  There is no evi-
dence that the White House asked Facebook to censor every 
user who reposts a member of the disinformation dozen, nor 
did Facebook change its policies to do so.  Facebook’s 2023 
warning to Hines bears only a tangential relationship to the 
White House’s 2021 directive to Facebook. 

Hines traces her remaining restrictions to the CDC.  Be-
ginning  in  October  2020,  Facebook  fact  checked  Hines’ 
posts about pregnant women taking the COVID–19 vaccine, 
—————— 

6 Hines tries to link this restriction to the Surgeon General’s Office as
well,  suggesting  that  the  White  House  and  Surgeon  General  together 
pressured Facebook.  But the record reveals that a White House official 
sent  the  relevant  email,  and  Facebook  responded  only to  White  House 
officials.  The Surgeon General’s Office was seemingly uninvolved.  Thus, 
Hines  cannot  demonstrate  that  her  past  restriction  is  traceable  to  the
Surgeon  General’s  Office.    The  plaintiffs  do  not  attempt  to  draw  any
other connections between their restrictions and the Surgeon General’s 
Office.