The Supreme Court on Monday refused a request from 2024 presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to intervene in a social media censorship case brought against Biden administration officials.
The justices previously agreed to hear the case, in which a group of Republican-controlled states and individuals are accusing the Biden administration of violating the First Amendment when communicating with social media companies about content moderation.
A similar case brought by Kennedy, the nonprofit Children’s Health Defense and a Louisiana resident was consolidated at the trial level. But the judge did not act on those plaintiffs’ case after granting an injunction in favor of the GOP states.
With the states’ case now before the Supreme Court, Kennedy filed a motion to intervene so he, too, could argue before the justices.
But in a brief order, the justices declined his request. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, claiming that the 2024 presidential campaign will be long underway by the time Kennedy’s case is addressed by the lower court.
“Our democratic form of government is undermined if Government officials prevent a candidate for high office from communicating with voters, and such efforts are especially dangerous when the officials engaging in such conduct are answerable to a rival candidate,” Alito wrote. “I would allow him to intervene to ensure that we can reach the merits of respondents’ claims and to prevent the irreparable loss of his First Amendment rights.”
Missouri’s and Louisiana’s Republican attorneys general sued numerous Biden administration officials by arguing their communications with social media companies is tantamount to a “campaign of censorship” by the government.
The administration insists its efforts comply with the First Amendment and are intended to combat misinformation.
After lower courts blocked various officials’ communications with social media companies, the Supreme Court paused those rulings and agreed to take up the case in full. At the time, three of the court’s conservatives — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — expressed concerns about the communications and said they would’ve left the block in place.
In seeking to intervene in the case, Kennedy noted that the other plaintiffs’ standing, meaning their legal right to sue, is contested. Kennedy argued that adding his coalition would ensure at least one plaintiff has standing, which would enable the justices to rule on the weighty First Amendment issue.
Both the Biden administration and the Republican attorneys general — Missouri and Louisiana — opposed Kennedy’s bid, arguing he filed his request too late and did not show a legal interest not already adequately represented by the states.
“Movants do not satisfy any of the relevant considerations, much less identify anything rare, unusual, or extraordinary that would warrant intervention here,” the Justice Department wrote in its response.
“The Kennedy Plaintiffs provide no adequate justification for attempting to intervene at a time that would delay proceedings well underway, such as changes in factual circumstances or legal developments,” the states wrote.
A longtime anti-vaccine activist, Kennedy was thrown into the spotlight during the COVID-19 pandemic when he regurgitated old conspiracy theories about vaccines causing autism and spread new ones, such as claiming the COVID-19 vaccine is “the deadliest vaccine ever made.”
Kennedy blamed the government for the “online suppression of facts and opinions” about COVID-19 vaccines in his original lawsuit. In his filing with the Supreme Court, Kennedy claimed that his speeches and interviews continue to be blocked online — and that the interests of “millions of Americans who wish to hear his views” are currently unrepresented in the case.
A decision in Murthy v. Missouri is expected by the end of June. A date for oral arguments has not yet been scheduled.