The Supreme Court is photographed, Feb. 28, 2024 in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)
This is the latest case at the Supreme Court testing how federal and state governments, big tech platforms, and private users can operate in an increasingly crowded and contentious digital space.
The lawsuit alleges 67 federal agencies and officials coerced platforms like Facebook and Twitter/X to censor individual posts, primarily related to COVID-19 restrictions imposed by the past two administrations, as well as the 2020 presidential election results.
Those cited include White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI, and the U.S. cybersecurity agency.
The Justice Department told the high court the president and agencies under his control have long enjoyed a "bully pulpit" to try and persuade citizens and companies, in ways that advance the public interest. That includes areas like public health, voting integrity, and national security threats.
NEW MEXICO COUNTY COMMISSIONER WHO PARTICIPATED IN JAN 6 RIOT LOSES SUPREME COURT APPEAL
But a federal appeals court ruled against the administration, saying officials could not "coerce or significantly encourage" changes in online content.
In oral arguments, conservative justices were most vocal against the federal government's actions, which Alito in October – when the appeal first arrived at the high court – said was "heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news."
Justice Clarence Thomas asked at one point, suggesting how the federal government might subtly coordinate with tech firms. "You just work together, said: Look, we're right; they're wrong. Let's work together. You know, we're on the same team. Let's work together to make sure that this misinformation doesn't gain sort of any following."
But several of their conservative colleagues were concerned about hamstringing the federal government too severely. One hypothetical raised in court was how to respond to an epidemic sprouting online, where young people were being encouraged as a dare or stunt to record themselves jumping off windows to the ground below, at ever-increasing heights.
The Supreme Court is seen in Washington, March 7, 2024. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
The high court in February heard separate arguments over a challenge to social media company policies that deal with subjectively "problematic" content.
The justices debated laws in Florida and Texas from 2021 that would restrict the ability of big social media companies like Instagram and YouTube to decide what third-party material they wish to publish.
The regulations aim to address what some lawmakers call "censoring" of conservative messages, and banning politicians like former President Trump, for violating subjective policies over offensive or "problematic" content.
Separately, the justices Friday issued rulings that public officials can be held liable in some cases for blocking critics on social media.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The court laid out new rules on the free speech limits of government workers, and when their "mixed use" social media accounts cross the line from personal; conduct to official business.
The case argued Monday is Murthy v. Missouri (23-411). A decision is expected by early summer.
Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more Fox News politics content.
Subscribed
You've successfully subscribed to this newsletter!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-debates-biden-administration-outreach-digital-platforms-over-controversial-posts