Saturday, October 31, 2026Every claim sourced. Every source linked.
The record of what the American press got wrong, and who it helped
The Censorship Bureau
Confirmed

Murthy v. Missouri: Supreme Court rules on standing (June 26, 2024)

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that neither the states nor the individual users had Article III standing to seek a preliminary injunction, reversing the Fifth Circuit. The Court did not decide whether the government's contacts violated the First Amendment.

Jun 26, 2024
Whose side it served: Neither party

A Supreme Court ruling joined by justices appointed by presidents of both parties; the 2026 settlement was reached by the Trump administration.

What the record shows

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Jackson. The opinion said platforms had moderated similar content before government involvement and 'continued to exercise their independent judgment,' and noted CISA stopped switchboarding in mid-2022 with the government representing it would not resume for 2024. Justice Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, dissented. On remand, the parties announced a consent decree on March 24, 2026, signed by Judge Doughty, permanently barring the Surgeon General, the CDC and CISA from threatening covered platforms to suppress protected speech; the decree states it is not an admission of the plaintiffs' allegations.

In their words

“no plaintiff has carried that burden”— Justice Amy Coney Barrett, majority opinion · source
“one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years”— Justice Samuel Alito, dissent · source
The other side

The majority stressed that standing requires traceable injury, not a ruling on the merits. Commentators split on the 2026 settlement: supporters called it a landmark; critics such as Techdirt called it a 'fake victory' in a case the plaintiffs lost at the Supreme Court.

Sources

Get the daily file.