Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

8 

MURTHY v. MISSOURI 

Opinion of the Court 

Id., at 389, 391. 

The Fifth Circuit agreed with the District Court that the
equities  favored  the  plaintiffs.    Id.,  at  392–394.    It  then 
modified the District Court’s injunction to state that the de-
fendants, and their employees and agents, shall not “ ‘coerce 
or  significantly  encourage  social-media  companies  to  re-
move, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through alter-
ing their algorithms, posted  social-media content contain-
ing protected free speech.’ ”  Id., at 397.  The court did not 
limit the injunction to the platforms that the plaintiffs use 
or the topics that the plaintiffs wish to discuss, explaining
that the harms stemming from the defendants’ conduct “im-
pac[t] every social-media user.”  Id., at 398. 

The federal agencies and officials applied to this Court for
emergency relief.  We stayed the injunction, treated the ap-
plication as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted
the petition.  601 U. S. ___ (2023). 

II 
We begin—and end—with standing.  At this stage, nei-
ther the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established 
standing to seek an injunction against any defendant.  We 
therefore  lack  jurisdiction  to  reach  the  merits  of  the  dis-
pute. 

A 

Article  III  of  the  Constitution  limits  the  jurisdiction  of 
federal courts to “Cases” and “Controversies.”  The “case or 
controversy”  requirement  is  “ ‘fundamental  to  the  judici-
ary’s proper role in our system of government.’ ”  Raines v. 
Byrd, 521 U. S. 811, 818 (1997) (quoting Simon v. Eastern 
Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 37 (1976)).
Federal courts can only review statutes and executive ac-
tions when necessary “to redress or prevent actual or immi-
nently  threatened  injury  to  persons  caused  by  . . .  official 
violation of law.”  Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555