Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 68

34 

MURTHY v. MISSOURI 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

responsive.”  Ibid.  That brainstorming resulted in the Au-
gust 2021 rule changes.  See supra, at 13, 19–20. 

In sum, the officials wielded potent authority.  Their com-
munications with Facebook were virtual demands.  And Fa-
cebook’s quavering responses to those demands show that 
it felt a strong need to yield.

For these reasons, I would hold that Hines is likely to pre-
vail  on  her  claim  that  the  White  House  coerced  Facebook 
into censoring her speech. 

* 

* 

* 
For  months,  high-ranking  Government  officials  placed 
unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ 
free speech.  Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to ad-
dress this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respect-
fully dissent.