Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

“direct  censorship  injuries.”  They  claim  that  the  re-
strictions they have experienced in the past on various plat-
forms  are  traceable  to  the  defendants  and  that  the  plat-
forms will continue to censor their speech at the behest of
the defendants.  So we first consider whether the plaintiffs 
have demonstrated traceability for their past injuries. 

Here, a note of caution: If the plaintiffs were seeking com-
pensatory relief, the traceability of their past injuries would 
be the whole ball game.  But because the plaintiffs are seek-
ing  only  forward-looking  relief,  the  past  injuries  are  rele-
vant only for their predictive value.  See O’Shea, 414 U. S., 
at 495–496 (“Past exposure to illegal conduct” can serve as 
evidence of threatened future injury but “does not in itself 
show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive re-
lief ”).  If a plaintiff demonstrates that a particular Govern-
ment  defendant  was  behind  her  past  social-media  re-
striction, it will be easier for her to prove that she faces a 
continued risk of future restriction that is likely to be trace-
able to that same defendant.  Conversely, if a plaintiff can-
not trace her past injury to one of the defendants, it will be
much harder for her to make that showing.  See Clapper, 
568 U. S., at 411.  In the latter situation, the plaintiff would 
essentially  have  to  build  her  case  from  scratch,  showing 
why she has some newfound reason to fear that one of the 
named  defendants  will  coerce  her  chosen  platform  to  re-
strict  future  speech  on  a  topic  about  which  she  plans  to 
post—in this case, either COVID–19 or the upcoming elec-
tion.  Keep in mind, therefore, that the past is relevant only
insofar as it is a launching pad for a showing of imminent 
future injury. 

The primary weakness in the record of past restrictions 
is the lack of specific causation findings with respect to any
discrete instance of content moderation.  The District Court 
made  none.    Nor  did  the  Fifth  Circuit,  which  approached 
standing at a high level of generality.  The platforms, it rea-
soned, “have engaged in censorship of certain viewpoints on