The Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments in a case testing how far the federal government can go in pressuring social media companies to remove content before it crosses a constitutional line.

The case, known as Murthy v. Missouri, arose out of efforts during the Biden administration’s first months to push social media platforms to remove posts that officials said spread falsehoods about the pandemic and the 2020 presidential election.

A US District Court judge said that White House officials, as well as some federal agencies and their employees, violated the First Amendment right to free expression by “coercing” or “substantially encouraging” decisions to moderate content on social media sites.

During oral arguments Monday, the justices appeared skeptical of a ruling that would broadly restrict the government’s communications with social media platforms, raising concerns about hampering officials’ ability to communicate with the platforms about certain matters.

The legal battle is one of five the Supreme Court is considering this term that lies at the intersection of First Amendment free speech protections and social media. It was the first of two cases the justices heard on Monday that involved alleged pressure, or informal pressure, by the government on an intermediary to take certain actions that would suppress freedom of expression.

Biden administration’s efforts to stop misinformation:

The challenge, brought by five social media users and the states of Louisiana and Missouri, claimed their discourse had been stifled when the platforms removed or downgraded their posts after being strongly armed by officials at the White House, CDC, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security.

The challengers claimed that at the core of their case lies a “massive and sprawling federal censorship enterprise,” through which federal officials reach out to social media platforms intending to pressure them to censor and suppress speech they do not favor.

US District Judge Terry Doty found that seven groups of Biden administration officials violated the First Amendment because they turned the platforms’ content moderation decisions into government actions by “coercing” or significantly “encouraging” their activities. 

It limited the types of communications agencies and their employees could engage with the platforms but included several exceptions.

The justices in October agreed to decide whether the Biden administration impermissibly acted to suppress expression on Facebook, YouTube, and X. The Supreme Court temporarily halted a lower court order limiting Biden administration officials’ contact with social media companies.

In its court filings, the Biden administration said social media users and states lacked legal standing to even bring the case, but said officials should be free to “inform, persuade and criticize.

The Supreme Court suspended the entry into force of these laws while issuing a ruling on two points: They are: determining whether content moderation is protected by the First Amendment, and the validity of requiring individual explanations.