Court Opinion

ID: 9908623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-11 15:01:13.293429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:21.562927
License: Public Domain

Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2023)            1

                     ALITO, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
  VIVEK H. MURTHY, SURGEON GENERAL, ET AL. v.
               MISSOURI, ET AL.
           ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
            No. 23–411.   Decided December 11, 2023

   The motion of the Kennedy Plaintiffs for leave to inter-
vene is denied.
   JUSTICE ALITO, dissenting from the denial of the motion
to intervene.
   Although intervention in this Court is reserved for unu-
sual circumstances, see S. Shapiro, K. Geller, T. Bishop, E.
Hartnett, D. Himmelfarb, Supreme Court Practice § 6.16(c),
p. 6–62 (11th ed. 2019), I would grant the motion now before
us. Allowing intervention would not unduly prejudice the
parties, but the denial of intervention may cause irrepara-
ble harm to the movant.
   This case concerns what two lower courts found to be a
“coordinated campaign” by high-level federal officials to
suppress the expression of disfavored views on social media
platforms that now serve as the primary source of news
about important public issues for many Americans. Mis-
souri v. Biden, 83 F. 4th 350, 392 (CA5 2023). One of the
alleged victims of this campaign is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.,
who is a candidate for President of the United States. The
District Court found that Government officials have asked
social media platforms to block Mr. Kennedy’s efforts to
communicate with the public and that the platforms have
complied. See Missouri v. Biden, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___,
2023 WL 4335270, *5, *9, *40 (WD La., July 4, 2023). Mr.
Kennedy brought a suit similar to the one now before us,
but his case is stuck in the District Court, which will not
rule on his motion for a preliminary injunction until we de-
cide this case. See Missouri v. Biden, 2023 WL 4721172, *2
2                   MURTHY v. MISSOURI

                     ALITO, J., dissenting

(WD La., July 24, 2023). Mr. Kennedy has therefore moved
to intervene here to protect his rights.
   Because Mr. Kennedy’s arguments on the merits are es-
sentially the same as respondents’, allowing intervention
would not significantly affect petitioners’ burden with re-
gard to that issue. But the denial of intervention is likely
to prevent Mr. Kennedy from vindicating the rights he
claims until the spring of 2024 and perhaps as late as June
of that year. And by that time, several months of the Pres-
idential campaign will have passed.
   In fact, denying intervention may prevent Mr. Kennedy
from obtaining redress for an even longer period. In suc-
cessfully arguing that we should stay the preliminary in-
junction entered below, the Government contended strenu-
ously that respondents lack standing.          If the Court
ultimately agrees with that argument and orders that this
case be dismissed, our decision will provide little guidance
for deciding Mr. Kennedy’s case, and Mr. Kennedy will be
required to wait until the District Court separately assesses
his claims.
   In addition, allowing Mr. Kennedy to intervene would en-
sure that we can reach the First Amendment issues, not-
withstanding the Government’s contention that respond-
ents lack standing. Indeed, because Mr. Kennedy has been
mentioned explicitly in communications between the Gov-
ernment and social media platforms, he has a strong claim
to standing, and the Government has not argued otherwise.
   Our democratic form of government is undermined if
Government officials prevent a candidate for high office
from communicating with voters, and such efforts are espe-
cially dangerous when the officials engaging in such con-
duct are answerable to a rival candidate. I would allow him
to intervene to ensure that we can reach the merits of re-
spondents’ claims and to prevent the irreparable loss of his
First Amendment rights.