Meta faces Supreme Court scrutiny over alleged government-led censorship of vaccine critics
By isabelle // 2025-03-06
Copy
 
  • The U.S. Supreme Court ordered Meta to respond to a petition by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) alleging collusion with the Biden administration to censor COVID-19 and vaccine-related content.
  • CHD was banned from Facebook and Instagram in 2022, claiming its First Amendment rights were violated by Meta’s censorship of scientific discussions.
  • Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted government officials pressured the company to remove content, contradicting earlier claims of independent decision-making.
  • The Supreme Court’s order suggests the justices are seriously considering the case, potentially impacting free speech and censorship laws in the digital age.
  • The case highlights broader concerns about tech giants’ role in public discourse and government influence over online content moderation.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ordered Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, to respond to a petition filed by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) by March 31. The petition alleges that Meta colluded with Biden administration officials to censor CHD’s content, particularly regarding vaccines and COVID-19. This move comes after Meta initially waived its right to respond, raising questions about the social media giant’s transparency and its role in suppressing dissenting voices. The case, which dates back to 2020, has gained renewed attention following Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s public admissions that government officials pressured the company to censor content during the pandemic. CHD, a nonprofit organization advocating for vaccine safety and informed consent, was deplatformed from Facebook and Instagram in August 2022 and has not been reinstated. The Supreme Court’s decision to compel Meta to respond suggests the justices are taking the case seriously, potentially setting the stage for a landmark ruling on censorship and free speech in the digital age.

A battle over free speech and government overreach

CHD’s lawsuit, filed in November 2020, accuses Meta of collaborating with Biden administration officials to suppress its content, including posts about COVID-19 vaccines, natural immunity, and alternative treatments like ivermectin. The organization argues that such censorship violates the First Amendment, particularly when the suppressed information is based on scientific data. Meta’s actions against CHD began as early as May 2019, with the removal or restriction of posts. By August 2022, the organization was completely banned from Facebook and Instagram. CHD CEO Mary Holland noted that the organization’s ability to share critical health information was stifled at a time when such discussions were most needed. The timing of the Supreme Court’s order is notable, coming just weeks after Zuckerberg admitted on Joe Rogan’s podcast that government officials “would call up our team and, like, scream at them and curse” to demand the removal of content, even when it was factually accurate. These admissions contradict Meta’s earlier claims in court that its censorship decisions were made independently, without government influence.

Zuckerberg’s admissions raise questions

Zuckerberg’s revelations have added fuel to CHD’s case. In January, less than 24 hours after CHD petitioned the Supreme Court, Zuckerberg announced Meta would end its third-party fact-checking program, a move seen by many as an attempt to distance the company from its controversial censorship practices. However, CHD argues that this change does not absolve Meta of its past actions. “That the U.S. Supreme Court has now required Meta to respond seems a hopeful sign that the court is taking our petition seriously and that we also will get a chance to respond to Meta’s submission,” said CHD General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg. The case has drawn attention from free speech advocates and legal experts who warn of the dangers of government-led censorship in the digital age. National healthcare attorney Rick Jaffe, who is not directly involved in the case but represents CHD in other matters, called the Supreme Court’s order a “positive indication” that the justices are taking the issue seriously. “My speculation is that Zuckerberg’s recent admissions, adeptly pointed out by Roger Teich’s supplemental letter to the Court, made some members want a response from Meta,” Jaffe said. CHD’s fight against Meta is part of a larger battle to hold tech giants accountable for their role in shaping public discourse. As Holland wrote in a recent op-ed, “The American public is better served with more information rather than less, especially when it is grounded in data-based scientific information. People are smart enough to make up their own minds.” The Supreme Court’s decision to compel Meta to respond to CHD’s petition marks a critical juncture in the ongoing debate over free speech and censorship. With Zuckerberg’s admissions casting doubt on Meta’s claims of independence, the case could set a precedent for how social media platforms navigate their responsibilities in the digital public square. As the March 31 deadline approaches, all eyes will be on the Court to see whether it will take up a case that could redefine the boundaries of free expression in the 21st century. Sources for this article include: ChildrensHealthDefense.org ChildrensHealthDefense.org ChildrensHealthDefense.org
Copy