Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

F. 4th 350 (2023).  It first held that the individual plaintiffs
had Article III standing to seek injunctive relief, reasoning 
that the social-media companies had suppressed the plain-
tiffs’ speech in the past and were likely to do so again in the 
future, id., at 367–369, and that both of these injuries were 
“traceable to government-coerced enforcement” of the plat-
form’s  policies  and  “redressable  by  an  injunction  against 
the government officials,” id., at 373.  The court also con-
cluded that the States had standing, both because the plat-
forms  had  restricted  the  posts  of  individual  state  officials
and  because  the  States  have  the  “right  to  listen”  to  their
citizens on social media.  Id., at 371–372. 

On the merits, the Fifth Circuit explained that “a private
party’s conduct may be state action if the government co-
erced  or  significantly  encouraged  it.”    Id.,  at  380  (citing 
Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U. S. 991, 1004 (1982); emphasis de-
leted).  To identify coercion, it asked whether “the govern-
ment  compelled  the  [private  party’s]  decision  by  . . .  inti-
mating that some form of punishment will follow a failure 
to comply.”  83 F. 4th, at 380.  The court explained that the
Government  significantly  encourages  a  private  party’s
choice  when  it  exercises  “active,  meaningful  control, 
whether  by  entanglement  in  the  party’s  decision-making 
process or direct involvement in carrying out the decision
itself.”  Id., at 377.3 

Applying  those  tests,  the  Fifth  Circuit  determined  that 
White House officials, in conjunction with the Surgeon Gen-
eral’s  Office,  likely  both  coerced  and  significantly  encour-
aged the platforms to moderate content.  Id., at 388.  The 
court concluded that the same was true for the FBI.  Ibid.  
It  held  that  the  CDC  and  CISA  significantly  encouraged 
(but  did  not  coerce)  the  platforms’  moderation  decisions. 

—————— 

3 Because we do not reach the merits, we express no view as to whether 
the Fifth Circuit correctly articulated the standard for when the Govern-
ment transforms private conduct into state action.