Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 56.0

22 

MURTHY v. MISSOURI 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

In short, when Hines sued in August 2022, there was still 
a link between the White House and the injuries she was 
presently suffering and could reasonably expect to suffer in
the future.  That is enough for traceability. 

C 
Redressability.  Finally, Hines was required to show that
the  threat  of  future  injury  she  faced  when  the  complaint 
was  filed  “likely  would  be  redressed”  by  injunctive  relief. 
FDA  v.  Alliance  for  Hippocratic  Medicine,  602  U. S.  367, 
380 (2024).  This required proof that a preliminary injunc-
tion would reduce Hines’s “risk of [future] harm . . . to some 
extent.”  Massachusetts  v.  EPA,  549  U. S.  497,  526  (2007) 
(emphasis added).  And as we recently explained, “[t]he sec-
ond  and  third  standing  requirements—causation  and  re-
dressability—are often ‘flip sides of the same coin.’ ”  Alli-
ance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U. S., at 380.  Therefore, 
“[i]f a defendant’s action causes an injury, enjoining the ac-
tion  or  awarding  damages  for  the  action  will  typically  re-
dress that injury.”  Id., at 381. 

Hines easily satisfied that requirement.  For the reasons 
just explained, there is ample proof that Hines’s past inju-
ries were a “predictable effect” of the Government’s censor-
ship campaign, and the preliminary injunction was likely to
prevent the continuation of the harm to at least “some ex-
tent.”  Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U. S., at 526. 

The Court disagrees because Facebook “remain[s] free to 
enforce  . . .  even  those  [policies]  tainted  by  initial  govern-
mental coercion.”  Ante, at 26.  But as with traceability, the 
Court applies a new and elevated standard for redressabil-
ity, which has never required plaintiffs to be “certain” that 
a  court  order  would  prevent  future  harm.    Larson  v. 
Valente, 456 U. S. 228, 243–244, n. 15 (1982).  In Massachu-
setts v. EPA, for example, no one could say that the relief 
sought—reconsideration  by  the  EPA  of  its  decision  not  to 
regulate the emission of greenhouse gases—would actually