It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority.
“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.
Supreme Court tosses case that would prevent government from coercing social media to censor people.
originally posted by: Tolkien
a reply to: pianopraze
Shameful
Cowards backing away from ruling in support of the First Amendment, of all things.
originally posted by: VariedcodeSole
a reply to: pianopraze
Laws either have teeth or they don't. You don't get to say the law must be kept here, but it's okay to let it go over there.
Same with states attacking the Bill of Rights. NO WAY any state should be able to deny your rights while another state enshrines them. It's all utter BS.
No more talks of packing the court, anyone notice that? Everyone is playing ball is some shape or form. You simply cannot have this level of corruption and expect justice. It's not possible.
originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: pianopraze
It's definitely a bad ruling, and it shows at least 3 of the judges haven't read the case record yet.
I think it's largely based on the oral arguments at the hearing. Which I've heard were not done well on the State's side.
But this is just a ruling on the Injunction, the case will still go on. It's still in the "preliminary discovery" phase.