Murthy v. Missouri
The Court ruled that Missouri and Louisiana lacked standing to sue the federal government over alleged pressure on social media companies to censor content, because they failed to show a substantial risk of redressable injury traceable to government action.· AI-written
144 S. Ct. 1972 · No. 23-411 · 2023 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 26, 2024 · argued Mar 18, 2024
Judicial power · Standing to sue: legal injury
Majority opinion: Amy Barrett
The voteMajorityDissent
6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Reversed and remanded. Murthy won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Murthy was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. 43 (2024), originally filed as Missouri v. Biden, was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States involving the First Amendment, the federal government, and social media. The states of Missouri and Louisiana, led by Missouri's then Attorney General Eric Schmitt, filed suit against the U.S. government in the Western District of Louisiana. They claimed that the federal government pressured social media companies to censor conservative views and criticism of the Biden administration in violation of the right to freedom of expression. The government said it had only made requests, not demands, that social media operators remove misinformation.
On July 4, 2023, Judge Terry A. Doughty issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting several agencies and members of the Biden administration from contacting social media services to request the blocking or other moderation of content, with exceptions for material involving illegal activity. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that there had been some coercion in the government's contact with social media companies in violation of the First Amendment, but significantly narrowed Doughty's injunction.
The U.S. Supreme Court initially stayed the Fifth Circuit's order, then granted review of the case by writ of certiorari. In oral arguments, the justices questioned whether the evidence substantiated claims of state coercion against social media companies. On June 26, 2024, the Court ruled 6–3 that the states lacked standing to sue because they failed to demonstrate substantial risk of redressable injury traceable to government action.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2023 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(6)
Amy BarrettWrote the majority opinion
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Ketanji JacksonJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Brett KavanaughJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
Samuel AlitoWrote a dissent
Neil GorsuchJoined a dissent
Clarence ThomasJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- MurthyDepartment or Secretary of Health and Human Services
- Respondent
- MissouriState (Missouri)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1 (case or controversy requirement)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 26, 2024DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: reversed and remanded. Murthy won.
- Mar 18, 2024ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Louisiana Western U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
8 other argued cases since 1946 on standing to sue: legal injury, newest first.
- Transunion LLC v. Ramirez141 S. Ct. 2190Jun 25, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 2190Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Nestle USA v. Doe I141 S. Ct. 1931Jun 17, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1931Judicial power8–18–1 band
- Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill139 S. Ct. 1945Jun 17, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 1945Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC138 S. Ct. 1386Apr 24, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 1386Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Wittman v. Personhuballah578 U.S. 539May 23, 2016 · 578 U.S. 539Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- Esther Kiobel, Individually and on Behalf of Her Late Husband, Dr. Barinem Kiobel, et al., Petitioners v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. et al.569 U.S. 108Apr 17, 2013 · 569 U.S. 108Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Sprint Communs. Co., L.P. v. Apcc Servs.554 U.S. 269Jun 23, 2008 · 554 U.S. 269Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., et al.549 U.S. 118Jan 9, 2007 · 549 U.S. 118Judicial power8–18–1 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.