3 ms·
> 83 F. 4th 350, reversed and remanded. Is a ruling. It reverses the decision in "83 F. 4th 350" also known as Murthy v Missouri [1]. [1]: https://casetext.co
by lesuorac 2y ago
> 83 F. 4th 350, reversed and remanded.
Is a ruling. It reverses the decision in "83 F. 4th 350" also known as Murthy v Missouri [1].
[1]: https://casetext.com/case/murthy-v-missouri-3 https://casetext.com/case/murthy-v-missouri-3
- otterley 2y agoIt indeed is a ruling, but it's not a ruling that "US Government Can Continue Talking to Social Media Companies." It's a ruling that this specific case cannot be heard as presented.
- chatmasta 2y agoIt’s a ruling against the injunction, not a ruling on the merits of the case.
- lesuorac 2y agoAnd the injunction prohibited the USG from talking to Social Medial Companies. This ruling removes the injunction, Therefore, SCOTUS rules that USG can talk to Social Media Companies.
- otterley 2y agoThat's not how lawyers think about this, and since this is a legal case, if they don't, neither should the rest of us.
- lesuorac 2y agoWe're talking about the headline of a news article. The standard shouldn't be what would a lawyer claim. I would claim a lay-person would say that removing a limitation from doing X could be stated as allowing X.
- otterley 2y agoThe WSJ's headline is much better and not misleading: "Supreme Court Rejects GOP-Led Suit Claiming Government Censored Social Media".