Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf
Page Number: 15

Cite as:  602 U. S. ____ (2024) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

utilizing  a  multifactor  test  or  a  totality-of-the-circum-
stances analysis.  See, e.g., Missouri v. Biden, 83 F. 4th 350, 
380 (CA5 2023) (“[T]o help distinguish permissible persua-
sion  from  impermissible  coercion,  we  turn  to  the  Second
(and Ninth) Circuit’s four-factor test”); Kennedy v. Warren, 
66 F. 4th 1199, 1207 (CA9 2023) (applying the Second Cir-
cuit’s “useful non-exclusive four-factor framework”); Back-
page.com, LLC v. Dart, 807 F. 3d 229, 230–232 (CA7 2015) 
(considering the same factors as part of a totality-of-the-cir-
cumstances analysis); R. C. Maxwell Co. v. New Hope, 735 
F. 2d 85, 88 (CA3 1984) (same).  The Courts of Appeals that 
employ a multifactor test agree that “[n]o one factor is dis-
positive.”  49 F. 4th, at 715; accord, Kennedy, 66 F. 4th, at 
1210 (explaining that the absence of direct regulatory au-
thority is not dispositive). 

Ultimately, Bantam Books stands for the principle that a
government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred 
from doing directly: A government official cannot coerce a 
private  party  to  punish  or  suppress  disfavored  speech  on 
her  behalf.   See,  e.g.,  372  U. S.,  at  67–69;  see  also  Back-
page.com, 807 F. 3d, at 231 (holding that the First Amend-
ment barred a sheriff from “using the power of his office to 
threaten legal sanctions against . . . credit-card companies 
for  facilitating  future  speech”);  Okwedy  v.  Molinari,  333 
F. 3d 339, 344 (CA2 2003) (per curiam) (holding that a reli-
gious group stated a First Amendment claim against a bor-
ough president who wrote a letter “contain[ing] an implicit 
threat of retaliation” against a billboard company display-
ing the group’s disfavored message); cf. Penthouse Int’l, Ltd. 
v. Meese, 939 F. 2d, 1011, 1016 (CADC 1991) (“[W]hen the 
government  threatens  no  sanction—criminal  or  other-
wise—we very much doubt that the government’s criticism
or  effort  to  embarrass  the  [intermediary]  threatens  any-
one’s First Amendment rights”).