What happened
The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected an effort by Republican-led states to prevent the federal government from contacting social media companies to flag misinformation. The 6-3 decision, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, said the states and other parties didn't have standing to sue the Biden administration.
In a separate 6-3 decision, the justices overturned the bribery conviction of a former Indiana mayor, ruling that federal anti-corruption laws only criminalize bribes given before a public act, not rewards doled out afterward. The Supreme Court also "inadvertently and briefly," according to a spokesperson, published a draft opinion suggesting the court will allow emergency abortions in Idaho, temporarily blocking a near-total state ban.
Who said what
The social media ruling was a "technical if important election-year victory" that avoided "weighty First Amendment questions," CNN said. The decision, The Wall Street Journal said, "capped a wild ride for a case" tied to "persistent claims that conservative viewpoints" about Covid-19 vaccines, lockdowns and election rules "were being censored online."
The bribery ruling "continues a pattern in recent years of the court restricting the government's ability to use broad federal laws to prosecute public corruption cases," The Associated Press said. It also landed "as the court faces increased scrutiny over its ethics practices," The New York Times said, following "months of revelations" about luxury travel and other gifts Justice Clarence Thomas received and did not report.
What next?
The justices have "another major social media case to decide in the coming days" on the "validity of efforts by Florida and Texas to regulate platforms' content moderation practices," the Journal said.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
-
‘How can I know these words originated in their heart and not some data center in northern Virginia?’instant opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
Can Trump deliver a farmer bailout in time?Today's Big Question Planting decisions, food prices in the balance
-
Tips for seizing control of your digital well-beingThe Week Recommends A handy mix of technology and self-motivation
-
Can Gen Z uprisings succeed where other protest movements failed?Today's Big Question Apolitical and leaderless, youth-led protests have real power but are vulnerable to the strongman opportunist
-
Supreme Court points to gutting Voting Rights Actspeed read States would no longer be required to consider race when drawing congressional maps
-
‘An exercise of the Republicans justifying their racist positions’instant opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
Supreme Court: Judging 20 years of RobertsFeature Two decades after promising to “call balls and strikes,” Chief Justice John Roberts faces scrutiny for reshaping American democracy
-
Supreme Court rules for Fed’s Cook in Trump feudSpeed Read Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook can remain in her role following Trump’s attempts to oust her
-
Supreme Court to consider gutting agency autonomySpeed Read The court’s three liberals dissented
-
Trump asks Supreme Court to OK Cook ousterSpeed Read In his attempt to seize control of the US central bank, the president seeks permission to oust Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook
-
Supreme Court: Will it allow Trump’s tariffs?Feature Justices fast-track Trump’s appeal to see if his sweeping tariffs are unconstitutional
