Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2023 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

MURTHY, SURGEON GENERAL, ET AL. v. MISSOURI 
ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

No. 23–411.  Argued March 18, 2024—Decided June 26, 2024 

Under their longstanding content-moderation policies, social-media plat-
forms have taken a range of actions to suppress certain categories of
speech, including speech they judge to be false or misleading.  In 2020, 
with  the  outbreak  of  COVID–19,  the  platforms  announced  that  they 
would enforce these policies against users who post false or misleading
content  about  the  pandemic.    The  platforms  also  applied  misinfor-
mation policies during the 2020 election season.  During that period, 
various  federal  officials  regularly  spoke  with  the  platforms  about 
COVID–19 and election-related misinformation.  For example, White
House  officials  publicly  and  privately  called  on  the  platforms  to  do 
more  to  address  vaccine  misinformation.    Surgeon  General  Vivek 
Murthy issued a health advisory that encouraged the platforms to take
steps to prevent COVID–19 misinformation “from taking hold.”  The 
Centers for  Disease  Control  and Prevention  alerted  the platforms  to
COVID–19  misinformation  trends  and  flagged  example  posts.    The 
Federal Bureau of Investigation and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency communicated with the platforms about election-re-
lated misinformation in advance of the 2020 Presidential election and 
the 2022 midterms. 

Respondents are two States and five individual social-media users 
who sued dozens of Executive Branch officials and agencies, alleging
that the Government pressured the platforms to censor their speech in 
violation of the First Amendment.  Following extensive discovery, the
District Court issued a preliminary injunction.  The Fifth Circuit af-
firmed in part and reversed in part.  The court held that both the state 
plaintiffs and the individual plaintiffs had Article III standing to seek
injunctive relief.  On the merits, the court held that the Government