Re: social media dispute

Why the Supreme Court tossed this case out

In order to file a federal lawsuit of any kind, a plaintiff must show
that they've been injured in some way by the defendant -- a
requirement known as "standing."

As Barrett lays out in her opinion, this standing requirement has
several components. Among other things, a plaintiff must show that the
defendant's actions actually caused their injury, and that the injury
is "redressable" by a court order -- meaning that the court could
actually do something to fix the damage allegedly caused to the
plaintiff.

Additionally, when a plaintiff seeks an injunction -- a court order
requiring the defendant to change their behavior in the future -- it
is not enough to show that the defendant harmed the plaintiff in the
past. Rather, as Barrett writes, the plaintiff must show that it is
"likely" the defendant will cause them the same harm in the future.

Notably, these plaintiffs sued the federal government, and not the
platforms themselves, for the platforms' decision to remove or demote
some of the plaintiffs' content. That decision, to target a defendant
with only an attenuated connection to the alleged censorship, made the
Murthy plaintiffs' case even weaker.

https://www.vox.com/scotus/357111/supreme-court-murthy-missouri-fifth-circuit-jawboning-first-amendment

But, will the attorneys who pursued this case be tarred and feathered,
or pay a penalty?