The Lawfare Podcast Lawfare Archive: The Supreme Court Rules in Murthy v. Missouri
9 snips
Sep 27, 2025 In this discussion, Matt Perault, a technology policy director at UNC, and Kate Klonick, a law professor specializing in platform governance, dive into the Supreme Court's recent dismissal of Murthy v. Missouri. They unpack the concept of 'jawboning'—government pressure on social media—and debate its implications for free speech. The duo analyzes the Court's standing ruling, critiques the case's political origins, and explores the complexities of coercion versus persuasion in government-platform relations. Can executive action address these challenges?
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Jawboning Moves Decisions Out Of Public Debate
- Jawboning means government pressure on private platforms to change speech moderation decisions.
- Matt Perault warns this pressure happens daily across administrations and countries and moves debates into the shadows.
Murthy Case Rooted In COVID Pressure Records
- Murthy was brought by individuals and state AGs alleging pressure by the Surgeon General and CDC on platforms about COVID misinformation.
- Early discovery showed angry, forceful language in government-platform communications but that alone didn't prove causation.
Standing Failed On Traceability Grounds
- The Supreme Court dismissed Murthy for lack of standing due to weak traceability and injury.
- Justice Barrett's majority concluded plaintiffs showed no clear causation between government requests and platforms' takedowns.