October Term 2023 · Docket 23-411

Can the government force private platforms to remove protected speech?

Missouri claims federal officials coerced social media companies to suppress user content. The government argues it only persuaded private speakers.

Official caption
Murthy, Surgeon Gen. v. Missouri
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court order was verified.
  4. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Fletcher argued the government may not use coercive threats. He emphasized the distinction between persuasion and coercion.

    Aguiñaga argued government censorship has no place in democracy. He cited a large record showing unrelenting pressure on platforms.

    Fletcher addressed standing and the merits of the case. He clarified specific emails in the joint appendix.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the limits of government power over private speech. Missouri seeks to stop federal pressure on platforms. The government defends its right to speak freely.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 18, 2024.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Missouri wants the Court to strike down the lower court ruling. It seeks to stop federal officials from coercing platforms.

The government wants the Court to uphold its actions. It seeks to confirm its right to persuade private speakers.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Missouri argues federal officials used coercive threats. It claims this suppressed protected speech on private platforms.

The government argues it only informed and persuaded. It claims this distinction protects its First Amendment rights.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Thomas asked about the constitutional basis for government speech. He questioned the application of state action doctrine.

Justice Sotomayor asked how the injunction harms the government. She sought specifics on the meaning of significant encouragement.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines the boundary between government persuasion and coercion. It determines how federal officials interact with private platforms. The outcome shapes the scope of free speech protections.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON