The most consequential point in the Supreme Court’s opinion in Murthy v. Missouri, a case concerning arguably the greatest attack on free speech in the history of the republic, may have come in a footnote.
“Because we do not reach the merits,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote for the majority, “we express no view as to whether the Fifth Circuit correctly articulated the standard for when the Government transforms private conduct into state action.”
That it felt the need to make explicit the already-obvious could be seen more as a self-indictment than any kind of cautionary note to the defendants; that it was confined to a footnote mirrored the way the court shrunk from its duty in how it ruled – or refused to rule – on the vital matters at hand.
The plaintiffs in Murthy had obtained and marshalled voluminous evidence demonstrating that senior White House officials and federal agencies coerced, cajoled, and colluded – sometimes leveraging putatively private cutouts as proxies – with social media companies to suppress disfavored news and opinions en masse on matters ranging from the Hunter Biden laptop story to election integrity and COVID-19.
Government cannot make private sector entities do that from which government itself is prohibited, including violating the First Amendment by abridging our right to free speech.
The trial and appellate courts found that the plaintiffs, alongside millions of Americans, were likely victims of this Censorship-Industrial Complex’s assault on the First Amendment by proxy, and sought to prevent the federal plaintiffs’ censorious conduct during the pendency of the case via preliminary injunction.
The federal defendants challenged this freeze on their alleged speech-policing, and the Supreme Court was poised, in taking up the case, to decide if the state had indeed converted private sector entities into rights-violating deputized agents.
Instead, as the majority’s footnote indicated, the Court cravenly punted on a technicality.
Plaintiffs lacked standing to seek an injunction, the majority ruled.
So who does have standing? How high is the bar of proof? High enough to allow for our First Amendment to be gutted?
On the one hand, the Court not ruling on the merits preserves the opportunity for it to hem in the Censorship-Industrial Complex later.
But remaining silent spoke volumes.
By refusing to take up the case on technical grounds – after having removed a stay during the pendency of the case freezing such speech-policing activities – they effectively announced it is open season on free speech in America once again.
The Court’s non-ruling was actually an unmistakable directive: For 2024, the Censorship Regime has a green light to interfere at mass scale in the election as it did in 2020 – only this time it will know to do it more surreptitiously, laundered through more cutouts, so as to make it even harder to discover, and trace directly – coercion, collusion and cajoling to people’s rights being violated, making and securing a favorable ruling on standing even harder for next time.
This term the Court struck at the tyranny of the administrative state in ruling that defendants were entitled to go before a trial by jury, not before an agency court with an agency judge, jury, and executioner; and it said the Courts will stop deferring to agencies in making legal rulings just because a law may be ambiguous.
It also struck down chicanery from the DOJ on the exploitation of the “obstruction of an official proceeding” statute used by the Biden DOJ to railroad J6ers.
But when it comes to our free speech, Americans are out of luck.
And that undermines ultimately the entirety of the republican system that the Court otherwise in notable cases rightly defended.
This was a dereliction of duty of the highest order, and I fear, as Justice Alito laid out in his blistering dissent alongside Justices Thomas, and Gorsuch, that this is a ruling that we will come to rue – a ruling that will live in infamy.
Related
Ben Weingarten
Federalist Senior Contributor; Claremont Institute Fellow
SCOTUS’ Murthy v. Missouri ruling will live in infamy
Tuesday
Ben Weingarten
Federalist Senior Contributor; Claremont Institute Fellow
By Straight Arrow News
On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the federal government in the Murthy v. Missouri case regarding official communications between the government and social media platforms. In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court stated that the plaintiffs did not have the legal standing to seek an injunction against the Biden administration.
Watch the above video as Straight Arrow News contributor Ben Weingarten argues that the SCOTUS ruling was a “dereliction of duty of the highest order” and undermines Americans’ right to free speech.
Be the first to know when Ben Weingarten publishes a new opinion every Tuesday! Download the Straight Arrow News app and enable push notifications today!
The most consequential point in the Supreme Court’s opinion in Murthy v. Missouri, a case concerning arguably the greatest attack on free speech in the history of the republic, may have come in a footnote.
“Because we do not reach the merits,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote for the majority, “we express no view as to whether the Fifth Circuit correctly articulated the standard for when the Government transforms private conduct into state action.”
That it felt the need to make explicit the already obvious could be seen more as a self-indictment than any kind of cautionary note to the defendants; that it was confined to a footnote mirrored the way the court shrunk from its duty in how it ruled — or refused to rule — on the vital matters at hand.
The plaintiffs in Murthy had obtained and marshaled voluminous evidence demonstrating that senior White House officials and federal agencies coerced, cajoled, and colluded — sometimes leveraging putatively private cutouts as proxies — with social media companies to suppress disfavored news and opinions en masse on matters ranging from the Hunter Biden laptop story to election integrity and COVID-19.
Government cannot make private sector entities do that from which government itself is prohibited, including violating the First Amendment by abridging our right to free speech.
The most consequential point in the Supreme Court’s opinion in Murthy v. Missouri, a case concerning arguably the greatest attack on free speech in the history of the republic, may have come in a footnote.
“Because we do not reach the merits,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote for the majority, “we express no view as to whether the Fifth Circuit correctly articulated the standard for when the Government transforms private conduct into state action.”
That it felt the need to make explicit the already-obvious could be seen more as a self-indictment than any kind of cautionary note to the defendants; that it was confined to a footnote mirrored the way the court shrunk from its duty in how it ruled – or refused to rule – on the vital matters at hand.
The plaintiffs in Murthy had obtained and marshalled voluminous evidence demonstrating that senior White House officials and federal agencies coerced, cajoled, and colluded – sometimes leveraging putatively private cutouts as proxies – with social media companies to suppress disfavored news and opinions en masse on matters ranging from the Hunter Biden laptop story to election integrity and COVID-19.
Government cannot make private sector entities do that from which government itself is prohibited, including violating the First Amendment by abridging our right to free speech.
The trial and appellate courts found that the plaintiffs, alongside millions of Americans, were likely victims of this Censorship-Industrial Complex’s assault on the First Amendment by proxy, and sought to prevent the federal plaintiffs’ censorious conduct during the pendency of the case via preliminary injunction.
The federal defendants challenged this freeze on their alleged speech-policing, and the Supreme Court was poised, in taking up the case, to decide if the state had indeed converted private sector entities into rights-violating deputized agents.
Instead, as the majority’s footnote indicated, the Court cravenly punted on a technicality.
Plaintiffs lacked standing to seek an injunction, the majority ruled.
So who does have standing? How high is the bar of proof? High enough to allow for our First Amendment to be gutted?
On the one hand, the Court not ruling on the merits preserves the opportunity for it to hem in the Censorship-Industrial Complex later.
But remaining silent spoke volumes.
By refusing to take up the case on technical grounds – after having removed a stay during the pendency of the case freezing such speech-policing activities – they effectively announced it is open season on free speech in America once again.
The Court’s non-ruling was actually an unmistakable directive: For 2024, the Censorship Regime has a green light to interfere at mass scale in the election as it did in 2020 – only this time it will know to do it more surreptitiously, laundered through more cutouts, so as to make it even harder to discover, and trace directly – coercion, collusion and cajoling to people’s rights being violated, making and securing a favorable ruling on standing even harder for next time.
This term the Court struck at the tyranny of the administrative state in ruling that defendants were entitled to go before a trial by jury, not before an agency court with an agency judge, jury, and executioner; and it said the Courts will stop deferring to agencies in making legal rulings just because a law may be ambiguous.
It also struck down chicanery from the DOJ on the exploitation of the “obstruction of an official proceeding” statute used by the Biden DOJ to railroad J6ers.
But when it comes to our free speech, Americans are out of luck.
And that undermines ultimately the entirety of the republican system that the Court otherwise in notable cases rightly defended.
This was a dereliction of duty of the highest order, and I fear, as Justice Alito laid out in his blistering dissent alongside Justices Thomas, and Gorsuch, that this is a ruling that we will come to rue – a ruling that will live in infamy.
Related
Anti-Trumpers care about power, not democracy
News commentators across the political spectrum — including some contributors here at Straight Arrow News — have warned Americans about Donald Trump’s aspirations to make himself a dictator and effectively end the American republic if he regains power in November. Their warnings cite Trump’s own legal arguments, public statements and past behavior, including the attempted…
Jun 25
GOP must get to bottom of Rob Malley State Department saga
The FBI is investigating whether a former Biden administration Iran envoy, Rob Malley, moved classified information onto his personal email and downloaded it to his personal mobile phone. Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said they believe “a hostile cyber…
Jun 18
Hunter Biden’s gun trial exposes corrupt prosecution
On Tuesday, June 11, the jury in Hunter Biden’s firearms trial found the president’s son guilty on all three charges. The prosecution alleged that Hunter lied about his personal drug use habits when filling out paperwork to purchase a firearm. Legal experts say that it is rare to bring minor cases like this to trial…
Jun 11
Noncitizens voting in elections undermine US voting system
The House Administration Committee advanced two bills that Republicans claim will curb foreign interference in U.S. elections and prevent noncitizens from voting in federal elections. The legislation would require states to verify proof of citizenship for individuals registering to vote in these elections. Watch the above video as Straight Arrow News contributor Ben Weingarten points…
Jun 4
Underreported stories from each side
Moderate House Dem: ‘Donald Trump is going to win. And I’m OK with that’
25 sources | 13% from the left
Getty Images
Wisconsin Supreme Court to consider whether 175-year-old law bans abortion
19 sources | 6% from the right
Reuters
Latest Stories
World leaders coming to Washington for NATO summit
Watch 2:07
Yesterday
Concerns raised about conservative think tank’s Project 2025. What is it?
Watch 3:13
Yesterday
Gazan doctor released months after arrest by IDF says guards beat him
Watch 1:59
Yesterday
WH denies report Biden may drop out, Hill Dems consider demanding he go
Watch 2:25
Yesterday
RFK Jr. responds to new claims of sexual assault and eating dog
Watch 3:00
Yesterday
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
Talk to your kids about sextortion
Yesterday
Adrienne Lawrence
July 4 is a sacred holiday for all free people
Yesterday
Newt Gingrich
SCOTUS’ Murthy v. Missouri ruling will live in infamy
Tuesday
Ben Weingarten
Why Republicans will never shut down US-Mexico border
Tuesday
Ruben Navarrette