3 ms·

> SCOTUS didn't rule anything of the sort; they didn't get to the merits of the case. They dismissed the claim for lack of standing: Except that the lack of st

> SCOTUS didn't rule anything of the sort; they didn't get to the merits of the case. They dismissed the claim for lack of standing: Except that the lack of standing kind of necessarily implies the lack of merits. The allegations in the case where that the government improperly influenced the social media companies to suppress speech; the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that their speech was suppressed as a result of this improper influence, and by doing so, they failed to reach standing. But if their speech wasn't suppressed by government influence, then there's no influence to be improper in the first place! If you actually go through the decision and read it through, including the footnotes, it's clear that the court is pretty skeptical of the actual merits as well. Only one of the plaintiffs was able to come close to showing government influence in their censorship, but that argument is pretty weak given that they were repeatedly censored before they alleged the government influence began!

otterley 2y ago
> the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that their speech was suppressed as a result of this improper influence This isn't quite right and illustrates the subtleties involved in understanding these kinds of rulings. When evaluating standing, courts don't determine whether any claims made are true or not. They simply evaluate whether a cognizable claim is made that, if true, would constitute a redressable injury that is traceable to actions of the defendants. According to the Court, the plaintiffs didn't make any such claims, and that's why the case was dismissed for lack of standing. (Edited to remove a specific reference to the state plaintiffs.)
- jcranmer 2y ago
  There's two sets of plaintiffs in the suit, the state plaintiffs and the private plaintiffs. The state plaintiffs alleged standing on the basis that they have an interest in making sure their citizens have a "right to listen", and this was yeeted almost perfunctorily (it's like two pages of the decision). The states' lack of standing is not the major holding of this decision. The private plaintiffs alleged standing on the basis that they were censored by the platforms as a result of the government's encouragement, and they were yeeted specifically because they failed to demonstrate any traceability of their censorship from the government's action. Yes, I read the ~38 page majority opinion. (I gave up on the dissent as not being worth my time).
  - otterley 2y ago
    This dissent was one of the worst I've read in some time. While I disagree strongly with Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch most of the time, they are unquestionably very capable legal thinkers and writers. So I'm surprised just how terrible this dissent is. (Maybe it's an Alito thing.) Most of it is highly political and barely any of it is hard legal analysis. Even the standing argument they make leans heavily on a single individual plaintiff (Dr. Hines) and they don't even try to defend the standing of the states or other individuals. I have a feeling this dissent was published mainly for show, not because they actually have a defensible minority legal opinion. It's risk-free for them since it has no precedential value. I'm actually kind of shocked that three members of our highest court wouldn't join the majority in dope-slapping the Fifth Circuit (if not in the body, at least in a footnote) for such shoddy work product. That circuit is packed with morons hand-picked from the Heritage Foundation who arguably have no business practicing law in the first place.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

otterley 2y ago

> the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that their speech was suppressed as a result of this improper influence This isn't quite right and illustrates the subtleties involved in understanding these kinds of rulings. When evaluating standing, courts don't determine whether any claims made are true or not. They simply evaluate whether a cognizable claim is made that, if true, would constitute a redressable injury that is traceable to actions of the defendants. According to the Court, the plaintiffs didn't make any such claims, and that's why the case was dismissed for lack of standing. (Edited to remove a specific reference to the state plaintiffs.)

jcranmer 2y ago
There's two sets of plaintiffs in the suit, the state plaintiffs and the private plaintiffs. The state plaintiffs alleged standing on the basis that they have an interest in making sure their citizens have a "right to listen", and this was yeeted almost perfunctorily (it's like two pages of the decision). The states' lack of standing is not the major holding of this decision. The private plaintiffs alleged standing on the basis that they were censored by the platforms as a result of the government's encouragement, and they were yeeted specifically because they failed to demonstrate any traceability of their censorship from the government's action. Yes, I read the ~38 page majority opinion. (I gave up on the dissent as not being worth my time).
- otterley 2y ago
  This dissent was one of the worst I've read in some time. While I disagree strongly with Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch most of the time, they are unquestionably very capable legal thinkers and writers. So I'm surprised just how terrible this dissent is. (Maybe it's an Alito thing.) Most of it is highly political and barely any of it is hard legal analysis. Even the standing argument they make leans heavily on a single individual plaintiff (Dr. Hines) and they don't even try to defend the standing of the states or other individuals. I have a feeling this dissent was published mainly for show, not because they actually have a defensible minority legal opinion. It's risk-free for them since it has no precedential value. I'm actually kind of shocked that three members of our highest court wouldn't join the majority in dope-slapping the Fifth Circuit (if not in the body, at least in a footnote) for such shoddy work product. That circuit is packed with morons hand-picked from the Heritage Foundation who arguably have no business practicing law in the first place.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]