In a 6-3 ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme Court dismissed a case that claimed the Biden administration illegally pressured social media platforms to remove posts containing misinformation about Covid-19 and the 2020 election. The plaintiffs, including five social media users and the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri, argued that this coercion violated the constitutional right to free speech.

The court's majority opinion stated that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to sue, focusing on a technical issue rather than the substance of the case. However, the decision was seen as a victory for President Joe Biden as it overturned an injunction that restricted communication between social media companies and government officials.

Prior to this ruling, the FBI and other agencies were limited in their ability to flag posts and accounts that they believed posed a threat to national security. With the injunction lifted, these agencies can now more effectively communicate with social media platforms in order to address potentially harmful content.

The plaintiffs' argument centered around the claim that federal officials had pressured the social media companies into suppressing speech that contradicted the government's stance, particularly regarding the Covid-19 pandemic. They pointed to instances where posts were pushed down or accounts were suspended following communication with the White House.

The Biden administration countered these allegations by stating that it was merely urging social media platforms to address problematic content, including false information and misleading claims that could endanger lives. It also emphasized that many of the flagged posts violated the platforms' own internal policies.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, stated that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently establish a direct link between the social media restrictions imposed in the past and the communications made by government officials to the platforms.

However, Justice Samuel Alito, one of the three dissenting justices, strongly disagreed with the decision, characterizing the government's pressure on social media companies as "blatantly unconstitutional." In his dissent, he warned that the ruling set a dangerous precedent for future officials seeking to control public discourse.

This ruling follows a previous decision by a federal district judge in Louisiana, who sided with social media users and found that White House officials had violated the right to free speech. A federal appeals court subsequently upheld this ruling, albeit with some limitations on the involvement of federal officials.

This is the second case in which the Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit due to the plaintiffs' lack of standing, the first being a case involving the abortion drug mifepristone.

The Supreme Court clarified that the publication of the ruling on its website was an inadvertent mistake and stressed that a final decision has not been reached.