Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 57

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

23 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

remedy the Commonwealth’s alleged injuries, such as the
loss of land due to rising sea levels.  The Court’s decision 
did not prevent the EPA from adhering to its prior decision, 
549 U. S., at 534–535, and there was no way to know with
any degree of certainty that any greenhouse gas regulations
that  the  EPA  might  eventually  issue  would  prevent  the
oceans from rising.  Yet the Court found that the redressa-
bility requirement was met.
  Similarly, in Department of Commerce, no one could say
with  any  certainty  that  our  decision  barring  a  censorship
question from the 2020 census questionnaire would prevent 
New York  from losing a seat in the House of Representa-
tives, 588 U. S., at 767, and in fact that result occurred de-
spite our decision.  S. Goldmacher, New York Loses House 
Seat  After  Coming  Up  89  People  Short  on  Census,  N. Y.
Times, Apr. 26, 2021.17 

As we recently proclaimed in FDA v. Alliance for Hippo-
cratic Medicine, Article III standing is an important compo-
nent of our Constitution’s structural design.  See 602 U. S., 
at 378–380.  That doctrine is cheapened when the rules are
not evenhandedly applied. 

* 

* 

* 
Hines showed that, when she sued, Facebook was censor-
ing her COVID-related posts and groups.  And because the 
White  House  prompted  Facebook  to  amend its  censorship 
policies, Hines’s censorship was, at least in part, caused by
the White House and could be redressed by an injunction 
against the continuation of that conduct.  For these reasons, 
Hines met all the requirements for Article III standing. 

III 
I proceed now to the merits of Hines’s First Amendment 

—————— 

17 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/nyregion/new-york-census-

congress.html.