Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 51

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

17 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

she was likely to be censored in the future.  680 F. Supp. 3d, 
at 713; 83 F. 4th, at 368–369.  We have previously examined 
such findings under the “clearly erroneous” test.  See Duke 
Power  Co.  v.  Carolina  Environmental  Study  Group,  Inc., 
438 U. S. 59, 77 (1978).  But no matter what test is applied,
the record clearly shows that Hines was still being censored 
when she sued—and that the censorship continued thereaf-
ter.  See supra, at 15–16.  That was sufficient to establish 
the type of injury needed to obtain injunctive relief.  O’Shea, 
414 U. S., at 496; see also County of Riverside v. McLaugh-
lin, 500 U. S. 44, 51 (1991). 

B 

Traceability.  To sue the White House officials, Hines had 
to  identify  a  “causal  connection”  between  the  actions  of 
those  officials  and  her  censorship.  Bennett  v.  Spear,  520 
U. S. 154, 169 (1997).  Hines did not need to prove that it 
was  only  because  of  those  officials’  conduct  that  she  was 
censored.  Rather, as we held in Department of Commerce 
v. New York, 588 U. S. 752 (2019), it was enough for her to 
show that one predictable effect of the officials’ action was 
that Facebook would modify its censorship policies in a way 
that affected her.  Id., at 768. 

Hines easily met that test, and her traceability theory is
at least as strong as the State of New York’s in the Depart-
ment  of  Commerce  case.  There,  the  State  claimed  that  it 
would be hurt by a census question about citizenship.  The 
State  predicted  that  the  question  would  dissuade  some 
noncitizen households from complying with their legal duty 
to complete the form, and it asserted that this in turn could 
cause the State to lose a seat in the House of Representa-
tives,  as  well  as  federal  funds  that  are  distributed  on  the 
basis of population.  Id., at 766–767.  Although this theory
depended on illegal conduct by third parties and an attenu-
ated chain of causation, the Court found that the State had 
established  traceability.    It  was  enough,  the  Court  held,