Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 17

12 

MURTHY v. MISSOURI 

Opinion of the Court 

key issues,” while “the government has engaged in a years-
long pressure campaign” to ensure that the platforms sup-
press those viewpoints.  83 F. 4th, at 370.  The platforms’
“censorship decisions”—including those affecting the plain-
tiffs—were thus “likely attributable at least in part to the
platforms’ reluctance to risk” the consequences of refusing 
to “adhere to the government’s directives.”  Ibid. 

We  reject  this  overly  broad  assertion.    As  already  dis-
cussed, the platforms moderated similar content long before
any  of  the  Government  defendants  engaged  in  the  chal-
lenged  conduct. 
In  fact,  the  platforms,  acting  inde-
pendently,  had  strengthened  their  pre-existing  content-
moderation policies before the Government defendants got 
involved.  For instance, Facebook announced an expansion
of its COVID–19 misinformation policies in early February 
2021,  before  White  House  officials  began  communicating
with the platform.  And the platforms continued to exercise 
their  independent  judgment  even  after  communications 
with the defendants began.  For example, on several occa-
sions,  various  platforms  explained  that  White  House  offi-
cials had flagged content that did not violate company pol-
icy.  Moreover,  the  platforms  did  not  speak  only  with  the 
defendants  about  content  moderation;  they  also  regularly 
consulted with outside experts.

This evidence indicates that the platforms had independ-
ent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their 
own judgment.  To be sure, the record reflects that the Gov-
ernment  defendants  played  a  role  in  at  least  some  of  the 
platforms’ moderation choices.  But the Fifth Circuit, by at-
tributing every platform decision at least in part to the de-
fendants, glossed over complexities in the evidence.4 

—————— 

4 The Fifth Circuit relied on the District Court’s factual findings, many 
of  which  unfortunately  appear  to  be  clearly  erroneous.    The  District 
Court found that the defendants and the platforms had an “efficient re-
port-and-censor relationship.”  Missouri v. Biden, 680 F. Supp. 3d 630,