Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 15

10 

MURTHY v. MISSOURI 

Opinion of the Court 

than  guesswork,  the  plaintiffs  must  show  that  the  third-
party platforms “will likely react in predictable ways” to the 
defendants’ conduct.  Department of Commerce, 588 U. S., 
at 768.  Second, because the plaintiffs request forward-look-
ing relief, they must face “a real and immediate threat of
repeated  injury.”  O’Shea  v.  Littleton,  414  U. S.  488,  496 
(1974);  see  also  Susan  B.  Anthony  List  v.  Driehaus,  573 
U. S. 149, 158 (2014) (“An allegation of future injury may
suffice  if  the  threatened  injury  is  certainly  impending,  or 
there is a substantial risk that the harm will occur” (inter-
nal quotation marks omitted)).  Putting these requirements
together, the plaintiffs must show a substantial risk that,
in  the  near  future,  at  least  one  platform  will  restrict  the
speech of at least one plaintiff in response to the actions of
at least one Government defendant.  On this record, that is 
a tall order. 

Before we evaluate the plaintiffs’ different theories, a few 
preliminaries: The plaintiff “bears the burden of establish-
ing standing as of the time [s]he brought th[e] lawsuit and 
maintaining it thereafter.”  Carney v. Adams, 592 U. S. 53, 
59 (2020).  She must support each element of standing “with
the manner and degree of evidence required at the succes-
sive stages of the litigation.”  Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 
504  U. S.  555,  561  (1992).    At  the  preliminary  injunction
stage, then, the plaintiff must make a “clear showing” that 
she  is  “likely”  to  establish  each  element  of  standing.    See 
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 
7, 22 (2008) (emphasis deleted).  Where, as here, the parties 
have taken discovery, the plaintiff cannot rest on “mere al-
legations,” but must instead point to factual evidence.  See 
Lujan, 504 U. S., at 561 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

B 
1 
The plaintiffs’ primary theory of standing involves their