In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that conservative states and social media users lacked standing to accuse Biden officials of colluding with Big Tech to censor COVID-19 misinformation.

The ruling, delivered by an unamused Justice Amy Coney Barrett, determined that the plaintiffs—an ensemble cast of conservative states and disgruntled social media users—failed to show they were harmed by the alleged shady backroom dealings between the White House and tech giants. As a result, the lower court's injunction against White House officials cavorting with Silicon Valley was tossed out—and Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch were left to flip the bird in dissent.

The plaintiffs had hoped to argue that their voices were muzzled in the digital town square, but Barrett's opinion rendered that argument moot. 'The plaintiffs have not demonstrated a substantial risk of future injury traceable to a Government defendant and redressable by an injunction,' she wrote, presumably while tuning out the distant sound of grumbling conservative commentators.

According to Barrett, none of the states or social media users showed they were directly affected by the alleged collusion. In legal terms, 'standing' is a bit like waiting in line at a deli: if you’re not holding a number, you’re not getting served. The plaintiffs, it seems, didn’t even manage to grab a ticket.

The dissenting Justices, however, were not so willing to let the bagel shop of democracy operate without scrutiny. Justice Samuel Alito, swapping his gavel for a megaphone, penned a dissent expressing concern that valuable speech was being suppressed. 'Censorship and suppression of dissenting views is a real and serious concern,' he cautioned, perhaps while scrolling through his carefully curated Twitter feed.

The case initially gained traction when it was revealed that federal officials had encouraged Facebook to tamp down on certain COVID-19 narratives. In particular, the emphasis was on curbing misinformation that was spreading faster than wildfire at a gender reveal party. Lower courts, moved by this scenario, had previously imposed an injunction to keep White House officials from engaging with major tech companies. But as of this ruling, that injunction is now as relevant as MySpace.

Conservative states and social media users who brought forth the suit were undoubtedly miffed by the decision. They argued that their right to free speech was being trampled. However, the majority of the Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the federal government. Looks like they won't be updating their status on that just yet.