Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 35

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

1 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

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  ALITO,  with  whom  JUSTICE  THOMAS  and 

JUSTICE GORSUCH join, dissenting. 

This case involves what the District Court termed “a far-
reaching and widespread censorship campaign” conducted 
by high-ranking federal officials against Americans who ex-
pressed certain disfavored views about COVID–19 on social 
media.  Missouri  v.  Biden,  680  F. Supp.  3d  630,  729  (WD 
La. 2023).  Victims of the campaign perceived by the lower 
courts brought this action to ensure that the Government
did  not  continue  to  coerce  social  media  platforms  to  sup-
press speech.  Among these victims were two States, whose
public  health  officials  were  hampered  in  their  ability  to 
share  their  expertise  with  state  residents;  distinguished
professors of medicine at Stanford and Harvard; a professor 
of psychiatry at the University of California, Irvine School 
of Medicine; the owner and operator of a news website; and 
Jill Hines, the director of a consumer and human rights ad-
vocacy  organization.    All  these  victims  simply  wanted  to
speak out on a question of the utmost public importance.

To protect their right to do so, the District Court issued a
preliminary injunction, App. 278–285, and the Court of Ap-
peals found ample evidence to support injunctive relief.  See 
Missouri v. Biden, 83 F. 4th 350 (CA5 2023).

If the lower courts’ assessment of the voluminous record 
is correct, this is one of the most important free speech cases