Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 50

16 

MURTHY v. MISSOURI 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

“Each  time  you  build  viewership  up  [on  a  page],  it  is
knocked back down with each violation.”  Id., at 1314.  And 
from February to April 2023, Facebook issued warnings and 
violations  for  several  vaccine-related  posts  shared  on 
Hines’s personal and public pages, including a post by Rob-
ert F. Kennedy, Jr., and an article entitled “ ‘Some Ameri-
cans Shouldn’t Get Another COVID-19 Vaccine Shot, FDA 
Says.’ ”  78 id., at 25503–25506.  The result was that “[n]o 
one  else  was  permitted  to  view  or  engage  with  the[se] 
post[s].”  Id., at 25503. 

II 

Hines  and  the  other  plaintiffs  in  this  case  brought  this 
suit and asked for an injunction to stop the censorship cam-
paign just described.  To maintain that suit, they needed to 
show that they (1) were imminently threatened with an in-
jury in fact (2) that is traceable to the defendants and (3)
that could be redressed by the court.  Lujan, 504 U. S., at 
560–561;  O’Shea  v.  Littleton,  414  U. S.  488,  496  (1974).
Hines satisfied all these requirements. 

A 
Injury in fact.  Because Hines sought and obtained a pre-
liminary injunction, it was not enough for her to show that
she had been injured in the past.  Instead, she had to iden-
tify a “real and immediate threat of repeated injury” that
existed  at  the  time  she  sued—that  is,  on  August  2,  2022. 
O’Shea, 414 U. S., at 496; see also Friends of the Earth, Inc. 
v.  Laidlaw  Environmental  Services  (TOC),  Inc.,  528  U. S. 
167,  191  (2000);  Mollan  v.  Torrance,  9  Wheat.  537,  539 
(1824).

The  Government  concedes  that  Hines  suffered  past  in-
jury,  but  it  claims  that  she  did  not  make  the  showing
needed to obtain prospective relief.  See Brief for Petitioners 
17.  Both  the  District  Court  and  the  Court  of  Appeals  re-
jected this argument and found that Hines had shown that