Murthy v. Missouri

Supreme Court of the United States · 2024 · Federal Courts

603 U.S. 43 (2024)

Updated August 1, 2026

Federal CourtstraceabilitystandingArticle IIIredressabilityinjunctive reliefthird-party causationfuture injury

Facts

Social-media platforms had longstanding content-moderation policies and independently moderated false or misleading content before the challenged government communications began. During the COVID-19 pandemic and election periods, White House officials, the Surgeon General, the CDC, the FBI, and CISA communicated with platforms about misinformation. Plaintiffs alleged that platform restrictions on their speech were caused by those government communications, but they sought only to enjoin government officials, not the platforms themselves. The record showed varied communications with different platforms on different topics, and the platforms often exercised independent judgment and had their own incentives to moderate content.

Issue

Whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing to seek a preliminary injunction against federal officials and agencies based on alleged future social-media censorship by private platforms. More specifically, whether plaintiffs showed a substantial risk of future injury fairly traceable to particular government defendants and likely redressable by an injunction against those defendants.

Rule

When plaintiffs seek forward-looking relief for injuries that depend on the independent actions of third-party platforms not before the court, they must show a substantial risk that, in the near future, at least one platform will restrict the speech of at least one plaintiff in response to the actions of at least one government defendant. Standing is not dispensed in gross: a plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim, against each defendant, and for each form of relief sought, including a threshold showing that a particular defendant pressured a particular platform to censor a particular topic before that platform suppressed a particular plaintiff's speech on that topic.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Seattle, Maya Ortiz posts about municipal health policy on a private video platform. She sues federal health officials for an injunction, alleging the platform may suppress her future posts because officials criticized online misinformation last year, but the platform had enforced similar misinformation rules before any government contact and still enforces them after the contacts ended.

Does Maya most likely have Article III standing to seek the injunction?

Explanation. When a plaintiff seeks forward-looking relief for injury that depends on the independent actions of a private platform not before the court, she must show a substantial risk that, in the near future, a platform will restrict her speech in response to the actions of a government defendant. Where the platform had preexisting policies and continues enforcing them on its own, traceability and redressability are weak.