Governments asking platforms: Murthy v. Missouri and the Twitter Files

Series: How minds are moved · Censorship, enforced and invisible · 3 of 7

On 4 July 2023 a federal judge in Louisiana wrote that, if the allegations before him were true, the case “arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history”. Less than a year later, on 26 June 2024, the US Supreme Court threw the case out 6 to 3 without ever deciding whether the government had broken the Constitution. Then, in March 2026, the same Louisiana judge approved a consent decree that permanently bars 3 federal agencies from threatening 5 social media platforms into suppressing protected speech.

Three courts, three different answers, one set of emails. This post lays out what each court found, what the Twitter Files showed, and what is still disputed.

Contents · 10 sections

TL;DR #

• Missouri and Louisiana, joined by doctors and others, sued the federal government in 2022, saying officials pressured platforms to suppress lawful speech about COVID-19, elections and other topics.
• The district court (July 2023) agreed broadly. The Fifth Circuit (September and October 2023) narrowed it but found that the White House, the Surgeon General, the FBI, the CDC and later CISA had coerced or “significantly encouraged” moderation.
• The Supreme Court (June 2024) ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing and said some lower-court findings looked “clearly erroneous”. It did not rule on the merits.
• The Twitter Files (December 2022 to March 2023) showed regular government contact and flagging. They did not show government orders behind the 2020 block of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
• In August 2024 Mark Zuckerberg wrote to Congress that the administration had “repeatedly pressured” Meta in 2021 and that he regretted not pushing back. The case ended in a 2026 consent decree.

What the plaintiffs claimed #

The suit, first called Missouri v. Biden, said officials had used meetings, emails and public threats (including talk of changing the legal shield that protects platforms) to get Facebook, YouTube and Twitter to remove or demote posts on vaccine side effects, the lab-leak theory, election fraud claims and the Hunter Biden laptop. Among the individual plaintiffs were Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, two authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which argued for focused protection instead of broad lockdowns.

What each court found #

The district court, July 2023 #

Judge Terry Doughty issued a preliminary injunction barring many agencies and officials from urging platforms to remove protected speech. His opinion quoted at length from emails between officials and platform staff. He found the plaintiffs likely to win.

The Fifth Circuit, September and October 2023 #

The appeals court cut the injunction back sharply, dropping most agencies and much of its wording. But it agreed on the core: the White House and Surgeon General’s office, and the FBI, had coerced or significantly encouraged platforms’ decisions, and the CDC had significantly encouraged them. On rehearing in October it added CISA, the cybersecurity agency that had routed election-related reports to platforms.

The Supreme Court, June 2024 #

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, for the majority, held that none of the plaintiffs had shown a substantial risk that they personally would be harmed in future by a government defendant. Platforms had their own reasons to moderate, she wrote, and had begun many policies before any pressure. She also said the lower court’s fact-finding relied on evidence that, in places, appeared “clearly erroneous”, for example treating routine communications as censorship requests.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, dissented. He called it “one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years” and wrote that for months high-ranking officials had placed “unrelenting pressure” on Facebook.

After the Supreme Court: the 2026 consent decree #

The case went back to Louisiana. In January 2025 the new administration issued an executive order on “restoring freedom of speech”, and proceedings were paused while the court considered whether that made the case moot. On 23 March 2026 the parties settled, and Judge Doughty approved the consent decree days later. It permanently bars the Surgeon General, the CDC and CISA from threatening Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn or YouTube with legal, regulatory or economic punishment to get protected speech removed or demoted, and from directing or vetoing their moderation. It still allows officials to share information and to say a post is wrong. Supporters called it a historic win; sceptics noted it binds three agencies and five platforms only.

What the Twitter Files showed #

After Elon Musk bought Twitter in October 2022, he gave internal documents to writers including Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss and Michael Shellenberger. Their threads, from December 2022 to March 2023, showed:

• Regular government contact. The FBI, health officials and others met the company and sent lists of accounts and posts. Twitter often acted on them, and sometimes did not.
• Visibility tools. Screenshots of internal tags on individual accounts, such as “Trends Blacklist” on Bhattacharya’s and “Do Not Amplify” on others.
• Payments. The FBI paid Twitter about $3.4 million from 2019. Shellenberger presented it as paying for moderation; the FBI and former staff said it was the legal reimbursement for processing law-enforcement data requests. Both descriptions are on the record.
• Requests from both parties. In February 2023 a former Twitter policy official, Anika Collier Navaroli, testified to Congress that the Trump White House in 2019 had asked Twitter to remove a tweet in which the model Chrissy Teigen insulted the president. Twitter declined.

What the files did not show: in the October 2020 decision to block the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story, Taibbi wrote that he found no evidence of government involvement. Twitter’s former managers called that decision a mistake. Separately, Zuckerberg’s August 2024 letter said Facebook had “temporarily demoted” the story after general FBI warnings about Russian “hack and leak” operations, and that it should not have.

What is still disputed #

• Pressure or persuasion? The central legal question, whether officials crossed from persuading to coercing, was never decided on the merits by the Supreme Court. The Fifth Circuit said yes for some agencies; the majority said the record was weaker than the lower courts thought.
• How much changed because of the government? Zuckerberg wrote that “ultimately it was our decision” and also that “the government pressure was wrong”. The Stanford-led Virality Project said it “did not censor or ask social media platforms to remove any social media content regarding coronavirus vaccine side effects”; Taibbi said its tickets pushed platforms to act even on “stories of true vaccine side effects”. Readers can weigh both.
• Did the information turn out true? Some flagged posts were false. Some, like questions about a lab origin of the virus, were later treated as legitimate. Facebook stopped removing lab-origin claims on 26 May 2021.

The same question, from other directions #

The Supreme Court did set out the coercion test in another case that spring. In NRA v. Vullo (30 May 2024), it ruled 9 to 0, in an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, that the National Rifle Association had plausibly alleged a First Amendment violation by Maria Vullo, then New York’s financial regulator, who had pressed insurers and banks to cut ties with the gun-rights group. “A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf,” the Court wrote. Vullo served under a Democratic governor; the NRA was represented by the ACLU. The Court did not decide the final outcome and sent the case back to the lower courts.

In September 2025 the same question came back under the next administration. After Jimmy Kimmel’s on-air remarks about the killing of Charlie Kirk, FCC chair Brendan Carr said on a podcast: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.” Within hours the station groups Nexstar and Sinclair said they would pull the show, and ABC suspended it. Republican Senator Ted Cruz called Carr’s words “dangerous as hell” and compared them to a mafia threat; President Trump said he disagreed with Cruz and called Carr “a great American patriot”. ABC brought the show back on 23 September. Sinclair said its decision was independent of any government influence.

What it feels like from the inside #

For a platform employee, a message from the White House is not an ordinary user report. Even a polite request carries the weight of the regulator, the legislator and the prosecutor. For the user whose post vanished, it looks like the company’s rule; the government’s role is invisible unless a lawsuit or a leak brings it out. Much of what officials wrote to the platforms became public only through court discovery and the files.

How to notice it #

• Look for the third party. When a platform changes a rule suddenly, check whether officials made public statements, or threats about regulation, in the weeks before.
• Read the transparency reports. Platforms list government requests by country. Watch for informal requests that fall outside legal orders.
• Separate “says it is false” from “make it disappear”. The 2026 decree draws exactly that line: officials may argue, they may not threaten.
• Check both administrations. If you only notice pressure from the side you dislike, your sample is biased.

Frequently asked questions #

Did the Supreme Court say the government censored people? #

No. It ruled on standing: the plaintiffs had not shown they personally faced likely future harm. It did not decide whether the government violated the First Amendment.

Did the Twitter Files prove the government ordered the laptop story blocked? #

No. The writer who published that part said he found no evidence of government involvement in that decision. The files did show broad, routine contact between agencies and the company.

Is the 2026 consent decree an admission of wrongdoing? #

The public summaries I found do not describe an admission. The decree sets rules for the future for three agencies and five platforms.

Does this only concern Democrats? #

No. The documented cases span parties and administrations: the 2019 Trump White House request about a single insulting tweet, a New York regulator serving under a Democratic governor in NRA v. Vullo, and the FCC chair’s 2025 warning to ABC. The Murthy case concerned Biden-era officials because those were the defendants.

The lesson #

The record shows a lot of contact, some pressure, a company boss who regrets yielding, and a Supreme Court that never answered the main question. It does not show a central order behind the best-known case, the laptop story. Courts at three levels read the same emails and saw three different things. That is your cue to read the primary documents yourself: the opinions, the files and the letter are public, and each side has quoted them selectively.