Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 62

28 

MURTHY v. MISSOURI 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

promptly respond, he added: “These questions weren’t rhe-
torical.”  30 Record 9387; see supra, at 8.  When Facebook 
provided the White House with some data it asked for, Fla-
herty  thanked  Facebook  for  demonstrating  “that  you  at
least understand the ask.”  30 Record 9368; see supra, at 7. 
Various  comments  during  the  July  pressure  campaign
likewise reveal that the White House and the Surgeon Gen-
eral’s Office expected compliance.  At the press conference
announcing  the  Surgeon  General’s  recommendations  re-
lated to misinformation, Psaki noted that the White House 
“engage[s]  with  [Facebook]  regularly,”  and  Facebook  “cer-
tainly understand[s] what our asks are.”  Supra, at 11.  The 
next  day,  she  expressed  confidence  that  Facebook  would 
“make decisions about additional steps they can take.”  78 
Record 25175; see supra, at 12.  And eventually, the Sur-
geon General’s Office prompted Facebook for “an update of
any  new/additional  steps  you  are  taking  with  respect  to
health misinformation in light of ” the July 15 advisory.  9 
Record 2703; see supra, at 13. 

These demands were coupled with “thinly veiled threats”
of  legal  consequences.  Bantam  Books,  372  U. S.,  at  68. 
Three instances stand out.  Early on, when the White House
first  expressed  skepticism  that  Facebook  was  effectively
combatting misinformation, Slavitt informed the platform
that the White House was “considering our options on what
to do about it.”  30 Record 9364; see supra, at 7.  In other 
words, if Facebook did not “solve” its “misinformation” prob-
lem, the White House might unsheathe its potent authority. 
30 Record 9364. 

The threat was made more explicit in May, when Psaki
paired a request for platforms to “ ‘stop amplifying untrust-
worthy  content’ ”  with  a  reminder  that  President  Biden 
“ ‘supports  . . .  a  robust  anti-trust  program.’ ”  78  id.,  at 
25170–25171 (emphasis deleted); May 5 Press Briefing; see 
also  supra,  at  9.  The  Government  casts  this  reference  to 
legal  consequences  as  a  defense  of  individual  Americans