In a win for President Biden that will imperil the fairness of the election, the Supreme Court today reprieved the White House’s “Ministry of Truth.”* That’s what a federal judge, echoing Orwell’s “1984,” calls Mr. Biden’s regime of online censorship. Critics say the program stifles speech by silencing contrarian voices on issues like Covid vaccines and conservative views in general. Yet the court’s majority says the program’s opponents failed to prove any harm.

It’s hard to follow the majority’s logic on that head, and the parties who brought the case — Louisiana, Missouri, and five users of social media platforms — may yet get the chance to demonstrate in the lower courts how Mr. Biden’s censorship infringed on their free speech rights. The examples they already gave sufficed for Judge Terry Doughty, in Murthy v. Missouri, to deem the program “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”

The riders of the Fifth Circuit agreed, decrying the “federally coerced censorship.” That’s their term for the pressure campaign by Mr. Biden to block, in the name of fighting disinformation, right-leaning content online. The majority concedes that the federal government has been policing content online. They acknowledge, too, that social media “platforms restricted the plaintiffs’ content.” Yet the majority fails to connect the dots.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority opinion, observes a “lack of specific causation findings” as far as “any discrete instance of content moderation.” If there’s a silver lining in this opinion, it’s that the plaintiffs now have a chance to bring in new evidence of how specific examples of online censorship followed interventions by federal government officials. Judge Doughty already noted that the censorship “targeted conservative speech.” 

Feature the stifling of “the Hunter Biden laptop story,” he noted. That could have tilted the 2020 election. Plus, what about the White House’s predilection for “suppressing negative posts about the economy,” Judge Doughty asks, or “about President Biden”? These columns have already noted how the White House has been trying to tamp down online gripes about inflation because it might harm Mr. Biden’s reelection prospects.

While the majority suggests that its hands are tied by the Constitution’s limit on “the jurisdiction of federal courts to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies,’” it seems that the Nine bent over backwards to ignore the core of this one. Meantime in National Rifle Association v. Vullo, the Nine just found unanimously that New York had engaged in back-door censorship of the rights group by trying to strong-arm firms from doing business with it. 

Pointing to Vullo, Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent explains that “government officials may not coerce private entities to suppress speech.” Yet “that is what happened in this case,” he adds. “For months in 2021 and 2022,” he writes, “a coterie of officials at the highest levels of the Federal Government continuously harried and implicitly threatened Facebook” if it failed to do the government’s bidding on “the suppression of certain COVID–19-related speech.”

It’s no surprise, Justice Alito says, that “Facebook repeatedly yielded.” The circuit riders zeroed in on this point, noting how the social media firms, “faced with unrelenting pressure” from the president, “did, and would continue to, bend to the government’s will.” The riders noted how, in response to federal requests, Facebook pleaded to “get back to a good place” with Mr. Biden. YouTube and Google bowed and scraped just as obsequiously.

If the Biden censorship regime is “more subtle than the ham-handed censorship found to be unconstitutional in Vullo,” Justice Alito says, it is “no less coercive.” Because it comes from the White House, he warns, it is “even more dangerous.” He concludes that it is “blatantly unconstitutional,” and in a hint at the election approaching in November, notes that “the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so.”

________

* Described by Judge Terry Doughty as an agency “responsible for altering historical records and disseminating propaganda to manipulate and control public perception.”