Murthy v. Missouri
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Murthy v. Missouri and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Murthy v. Missouri.
The Supreme Court examined whether the plaintiffs, consisting of two states and five individuals, had Article III standing to seek an injunction against government officials for allegedly pressuring social media platforms to censor speech. The Court found that neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs established standing, as they failed to demonstrate a substantial risk of future injury traceable to the government defendants. Consequently, the Court reversed and remanded the Fifth Circuit's decision.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Murthy v. Missouri.
The Court held that neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Murthy v. Missouri. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Standing is relevant to Murthy v. Missouri
The Court's decision primarily focused on whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing to seek injunctive relief.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant.
-
Why Free Speech is relevant to Murthy v. Missouri
The case involves allegations that the government pressured social media platforms to censor speech, implicating First Amendment free speech rights.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Respondents...alleging that the Government pressured the platforms to censor their speech in violation of the First Amendment.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Murthy v. Missouri
The Court reviewed and invalidated lower court decisions regarding the injunction against government officials.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)83 F. 4th 350, reversed and remanded.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Murthy v. Missouri that support the summary and concepts above.
The plaintiffs' theories of standing depend on the platforms' actions—yet the plaintiffs do not seek to enjoin the platforms.
The plaintiffs must show a substantial risk that, in the near future, at least one platform will restrict the speech of at least one plaintiff.
Enjoining the Government defendants, therefore, is unlikely to affect the platforms' content-moderation decisions.