Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 6

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to  notify  the  Reporter  of 
Decisions,  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Washington,  D. C.  20543, 
pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 23–411 
_________________ 

VIVEK H. MURTHY, SURGEON GENERAL, ET AL., 
PETITIONERS v. MISSOURI, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

[June 26, 2024]

 JUSTICE BARRETT delivered the opinion of the Court. 
During the 2020 election season and the COVID–19 pan-
demic,  social-media  platforms  frequently  removed,  de-
moted,  or  fact  checked  posts  containing  allegedly  false  or
misleading information.  At the same time, federal officials, 
concerned  about  the  spread  of  “misinformation”  on  social
media, communicated extensively with the platforms about
their content-moderation efforts. 

The  plaintiffs,  two  States  and  five  social-media  users,
sued dozens of Executive Branch officials and agencies, al-
leging  that  they  pressured  the  platforms  to  suppress  pro-
tected  speech  in  violation  of  the  First  Amendment.    The 
Fifth Circuit agreed, concluding that the officials’ commu-
nications  rendered  them  responsible  for  the  private  plat-
forms’ moderation decisions.  It then affirmed a sweeping
preliminary injunction.

The Fifth Circuit was wrong to do so.  To establish stand-
ing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that,
in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is tracea-
ble to a Government defendant and redressable by the in-
junction  they  seek.    Because  no  plaintiff  has  carried  that 
burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.