Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

6 

MURTHY v. MISSOURI 

Opinion of the Court 

behind it.  Acting on that belief, the plaintiffs sued dozens
of  Executive  Branch  officials  and  agencies,  alleging  that 
they pressured the platforms to censor the plaintiffs’ speech 
in violation of the First Amendment.  The States filed their 
complaint on May 5, 2022.  The next month, they moved for 
a  preliminary  injunction,  seeking  to  stop  the  defendants
from  “taking  any  steps  to  demand,  urge,  encourage,  pres-
sure,  or  otherwise  induce”  any  platform  “to  censor,  sup-
press, remove, de-platform, suspend, shadow-ban, de-boost,
restrict access to content, or take any other adverse action
against any speaker, content, or viewpoint expressed on so-
cial media.”  1 id., at 253.  The individual plaintiffs joined 
the suit on August 2, 2022.

After granting extensive discovery, the District Court is-
sued  a  preliminary  injunction.    Missouri  v.  Biden,  680 
F. Supp. 3d 630, 729 (WD La. 2023).  The court held that 
officials at the White House, the Surgeon General’s Office, 
the  CDC,  the  FBI,  and  CISA  likely  “coerced”  or  “signifi-
cantly encouraged” the platforms “to such extent that the[ir
content-moderation] decision[s] should be deemed to be the
decisions of the Government.”  Id., at 694 (internal quota-
tion marks omitted).  It enjoined those agencies, along with 
scores of named and unnamed officials and employees, from 
taking actions “for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pres-
suring,  or  inducing  in  any  manner  the  removal,  deletion,
suppression,  or  reduction  of  content  containing  protected 
free speech posted on social-medial platforms.”  Missouri v. 
Biden, 2023 WL 5841935, *1–*2 (WD La., July 4, 2023).2 

Following a grant of panel rehearing, the Fifth Circuit af-
firmed in part and reversed in part.  Missouri v. Biden, 83 

—————— 

2 The District Court also enjoined the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the State Department, along with their
officials and employees.  680 F. Supp. 3d, at 700–701, 704–705.  The Fifth 
Circuit removed these entities and individuals from the injunction, how-
ever,  so  they  are  not  before  us.  Missouri  v.  Biden,  83  F. 4th  350,  391 
(2023).