Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 5

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

5 

Syllabus 

on social media is critical to their work as scientists, pundits, and ac-
tivists.  But they do not point to any specific instance of content mod-
eration  that  caused  them  identifiable  harm.    They  have  therefore 
failed to establish an injury that is sufficiently “concrete and particu-
larized.”  Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560.  The state 
plaintiffs assert a sovereign interest in hearing from their citizens on 
social media, but they have not identified any specific speakers or top-
ics that they have been unable to hear or follow.  And States do not 
have third-party “standing as parens patriae to bring an action against
the  Federal  Government”  on  behalf  of  their  citizens  who  have  faced 
social-media  restrictions.    Haaland  v.  Brackeen,  599  U. S.  255,  295. 
Pp. 27–28. 

83 F. 4th 350, reversed and remanded. 

BARRETT,  J.,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  which  ROBERTS, 
C. J.,  and  SOTOMAYOR,  KAGAN,  KAVANAUGH,  and  JACKSON,  JJ.,  joined. 
ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., 
joined.