WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The US Supreme Court on Monday began hearing arguments in another battle over social media content moderation - a challenge on free speech grounds to how President Joe Biden's administration encouraged platforms to remove posts that federal officials deemed misinformation, including about elections and COVID-19.
The administration appealed a lower court's preliminary injunction constraining how the White House and certain other federal officials communicate with social media platforms.
The Republican-led states of Missouri and Louisiana, along with five individual social media users, sued the administration. They argued that the government's actions violated the US Constitution's First Amendment free speech rights of users whose posts were removed from platforms such as Facebook (META.O) YouTube and Twitter, now called X.
The case tests whether the administration crossed the line from mere communication and persuasion to strong-arming or coercing platforms - sometimes called "jawboning" - to unlawfully censor disfavored speech, as lower courts found.
Biden's administration has argued that officials sought to mitigate the hazards of online misinformation, including false information about vaccines during the pandemic that they said was causing preventable deaths, by alerting social media companies to content that violated the platforms' own policies.
The justices in February heard arguments in another social media case over whether to uphold laws passed in Texas and Florida that would restrict the content moderation practices of platforms.
The Republican backers of those laws have voiced concern over what they portray as bias against conservative voices on these platforms. Many researchers, as well as liberals and Democrats, have warned of the dangers of social media platforms amplifying misinformation and disinformation about public health, vaccines and election fraud.
In the case being argued on Monday, the plaintiffs have argued that platforms suppressed conservative-leaning speech, which they attribute to government coercion, a form of state action barred by the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court in October put the lower court's injunction on hold pending the review of the case by the justices.
The Justice Department said that government officials, including presidents, long have used the bully pulpit to express views and to inform on matters of public concern.
It also said that private entities that make decisions on that information are not state actors as long as they are not threatened with adverse consequences. The department also said that an injunction limiting the administration's actions could chill vital government communications, including to protect national security.
The plaintiffs sued officials and agencies across the federal government, including the White House, FBI, Surgeon General's office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
Louisiana-based US District Judge Terry Doughty issued a preliminary injunction in July 2023. Doughty concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claim that the government helped suppress "disfavored conservative speech" on mask-wearing, lockdowns and vaccines intended as public health measures during the pandemic, or that questioned the validity of the 2020 election in which Biden, a Democrat, defeated Donald Trump, a Republican.
The injunction barred an array of government officials from communicating with platforms regarding content moderation, such as urging the deletion of certain posts.
The New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently narrowed that order. The Supreme Court's ruling is expected by the end of June.