No standing in jawboning case (Updated)

Murthy v. Missouri--6-3, per Barrett, finding that any injuries were not fairly traceable to the government defendants; Alito dissents for Thomas and Gorsuch.

• The decision limits these massive kitchen-sink, lots-of-plaintiffs/lots-of-defendants/lots-of-bad-conduct constitutional claims--a record of undifferentiated "stuff that looks bad" is not sufficient to get a broad injunction stopping the government from engaging in future conduct.  Instead, plaintiffs must show "a particular defendant pressured a particular platform to censor a particular topic before that platform suppressed a particular plaintiff's speech on that topic." These plaintiffs encountered two further problems--1) any (questionable) past injuries were merely evidentiary on claims for prospective relief but could not themselves establish standing; 2) they needed to link the government defendants' actions to those of the non-party social-media sites, a longer chain of causation. As Jonathan Adler puts it, the Court's message to litigants is "do the work" if you want to push aggressive legal claims.

• The decision will have cross-ideological effects, as liberal plaintiffs must similarly tailor their lawsuits. Of course, courts have hamstrung liberal plaintiffs for years, so this is nothing new for them.

• The case illustrates why standing makes no sense independent of the merits. Even for the one plaintiff (Jill Hines, a medical commentator) able to "eke[]" out a showing of traceability, the challenged conduct does not rise to the level of coercion that would violate the First Amendment. So talking about whether she is suffering an "injury" traceable to not-unlawful conduct as a basis to enjoin not-unlawful conduct seems like a waste of time. The essence of this decision is the plaintiffs sued the wrong people, which would be a merits decision in, for example, a tort claim. It should not be different in a constitutional action.

    Update: Michael Dorf argues that the majority hides within the standing analysis "a view on the merits--namely this: wherever the line between permissible jawboning and impermissible coercion lies, the sorts of actions taken by the Biden administration fall on the permissible side." But by framing this as standing, it leaves the Court room to find coercion in future jawboning efforts that go farther than this does.

    But this case and Michael's hypothetical future case both address the merits, distinguishable only by the facts and the constitutional line. Why is it not better for the Court to be honest about that, rather than disguising a determination that no rights were (or presently are) violated as the absence of jurisdiction.

    I wonder if the answer to the incoherence of standing is Thayerian judicial review. Courts will reach the merits more often, so review should be more deferential. Have to give that some thought.

• The Court recognized the standing of Louisiana and Missouri as nonsense. But here are the arguments the states tried to make: 1) States suffer an injury when sites moderated posts from state legislators; and 2) States suffer a sovereign injury when the federal government prevents their citizens from speaking to them and prevents them from hearing from their citizens. The latter is prohibited parens patriae in disguise. But it seems hard to square both arguments with the positions states and state officials took in Lindke and O'Connor-Ratcliff about the power of state officials to block citizens from social-media pages. Lindke made clear that officials do not want to hear from their citizens all that much. And under Lindke, which required the defendant to have the legal power and obligation to speak for the government, no legislator will be subject to suit because no individual legislator possesses that power or obligation. It seems hard to square the argument that states are injured if legislators cannot speak on social media with legislators are not sufficiently connected to the state when their blocking readers on social media.

• Although spread across two sittings, three cases--Murthy, NetChoice, and Vullo--danced around similar issues about the extent to which government can affect or influence one actor as it relates to the speech of others. We have two and await NetChoice. Alito's dissent linked them: He argued that the "censorship" (his word) here was as dangerous, if more subtle, than the action declared invalid in Vullo; and he argued that social media sites are more susceptible to government coercion because of their dependence on § 230 and susceptibility to antitrust suits. Might the latter point hint that the Court will declare the state laws in NetChoice invalid--with Alito placing his marker for a dissent arguing it is inconsistent to limit state power over site moderation to the detriment of particular speakers while leaving the federal government free to (indirectly) run roughshod over the same group of speakers.

• Will this bring the Fifth Circuit to heel--the second time in less than a month the Court has reversed, on standing grounds, an overbroad universal injunction in a conservative constitutional challenge to a Democratic administration, forum-shopped into the Fifth Circuit? I doubt it. (Note: Adler adds California v. Texas as another example of the Fifth Circuit ignoring traceability problems to pass on the invalidity of federal law).