The U.S. Supreme Court was busy this summer, laying down some influential and controversial rulings. The 6-3 conservative-majority Court, influenced by Trump’s recent appointments, took up several cases involving the presidency, constitutional amendments, and individual freedoms. These rulings go beyond judicial reasoning, and Georgia showcases some clear examples of how federal cases can have local implications.
Trump v. United States
On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court gave its opinion on Trump v. United States, a case that sought to determine if President-elect Donald Trump had immunity from actions during his first presidential term. Questions of election interference and other misconduct by Trump arose from several acts, including those committed during the January 6 attack on the capitol following the 2020 election. The 2020 election outcome came with concerns and conspiracies of a false or rigged election, and some view the choice to infiltrate the capitol as an act of personal freedom and patriotism against a government unworthy of trust because of the belief of a “stolen election.”
Barbara Perry, a professor, and director of the Oral History Program at the University of Virginia, shares the same concerns as Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and many others regarding Trump’s perceived efforts to overturn the election: “I never thought democracy would be in danger, but it is… [I] never thought our constitution would be in danger, but it is.”
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that Trump is partly immune from the prosecution’s attempts to prove that Trump’s acts were election interference, citing that some of the mentioned acts were considered “official acts.” The Court established presidents are entitled to absolute or presumptive immunity for official acts, but they do not have immunity for unofficial acts. Furthermore, acts cannot be declared unofficial by the court simply because they break a publicly applicable law or because of the president’s motives. Essentially, presidents may be prosecuted for private conduct, but not acts committed in the scope of their presidential power.
The Supreme Court implied that whether or not an act is deemed official must be determined by the trial court; all charges brought against Trump can still go forward as long as they are a matter of his private conduct. The case returned to the lower courts to examine if the charges brought up against Trump reflect official acts or not. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts admitted that those determinations “can be difficult,” recognizing that the Court gave a broad view of what the official responsibilities of a president entail.
Further explaining the decision, Justice Roberts offered that the criminalization of a president’s official acts can affect their decision-making while in office; conversely, he also recognized the public interest in “fair and effective” enforcement of laws. This ruling has led to widespread confusion over how to classify official and unofficial acts and outrage over increased presidential immunity.
While Trump v. United States is considered a win for Trump, another election-related case in Georgia did not go his way. In Trump v. Kemp et al., Trump’s motion to decertify the election results in Georgia was denied; Trump’s opponent, Joe Biden, won by less than 12,000 votes in Georgia in 2020. Additionally, there was no substantial evidence of election interference against Trump anywhere in the United States that warranted a recount or recertification of votes, as Trump v. Kemp was one of sixty-plus failed cases brought about by Trump and his allies.
Georgia also has its own pending case against Trump involving election interference: State of Georgia v. Trump et al. The case, centered around racketeering, involves Trump and eighteen other co-defendants regarding the defendants’ alleged actions to try and overturn the 2020 general election. The actions refer to incidents like the phone call where Trump asked Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Secretary of State, to “find” him votes.
As President-elect, Trump could potentially pardon himself if convicted of charges, as he is scheduled to take office on January 20, 2025. However, it is more likely that the cases will be dropped or postponed until after his term is over. On the Court’s decision, Perry added, “I think the Court made a major error in making the president isolated from the rule of law while they were president.”
According to polling from 538, a people’s opinion polling analysis website, in October of 2024 American disapproval of the U.S. Supreme Court had increased by about 15% since July 2021, with 50.3% of Americans disapproving of the Court.
The recent increase in the disapproval rating of the Supreme Court most likely stems from “ethics issues, abortion issues, Trump, and ballot access,” suggested Perry. She worries that this decision will further damage the public confidence in the Court.
The recent increase in the disapproval rating of the Supreme Court most likely stems from “ethics issues, abortion issues, Trump, and ballot access,”
Moody v. NetChoice
In Moody v. NetChoice, the Court took up the issue of free speech and government regulation in the digital age. Back in 2021, Florida and Texas enacted laws limiting the ability of social media platforms like Facebook and YouTube to regulate user-created and shared content. The states passed the laws amid concerns of bias against conservative voices, and the laws curtailed the platforms’ authority to moderate content. NetChoice, an organization that advocates for free speech, expression, and enterprise on the internet, challenged these laws before they took effect, arguing that the laws violated the First Amendment. NetChoice notably represents companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google.
Opponents of the laws, like NetChoice, specifically argue that the First Amendment prevents the government from dictating if and how private companies should regulate speech. Supporters of the laws, however, argue that the laws are necessary to address and combat mis-, dis-, and malinformation (MDM) on a variety of topics, including the coronavirus pandemic and election fraud.
In NetChoice’s challenge to the Florida law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided to temporarily ban the government from enforcing certain rules about how online platforms moderate content, using the First Amendment as reasoning. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, handling the Texas challenge, disagreed with the Eleventh Circuit, saying they did not see a strong First Amendment issue with the law.
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court sent the cases back to the lower courts. The Supreme Court vacated, or annulled, the previous judgments but did not answer whether the specific content moderation provisions under review violated the First Amendment. It was sent back to the lower courts to independently reanalyze the regulation on digital platforms in Florida and Texas. In the meantime, the laws are not in effect.
The Court justified vacating the judgment by saying the states must “say more about how the First Amendment relates to the laws’ content-moderation provisions.” While the Supreme Court did not settle whether government regulation of private social media companies’ own regulations violates the First Amendment, its decision to send the case back to lower courts signals a partial win for NetChoice and represented companies; the Court implied that social media companies’ moderation policies are at least somewhat protected by the First Amendment.
Chloe Satterfield, a public policy undergraduate at Georgia Tech and president of Women Lead Right (WLR), an organization that educates and engages women in grassroots advocacy for issues that affect women, believes that “it is almost always wrong for someone to be censored because of where they fall on the political spectrum.” Furthermore, Satterfield stated that “there is misinformation spread online, in the press, and in conversation every day. The best way to combat this is to allow for open forums of communication where those with different perspectives can collaborate. Unhindered speech is necessary for civil discourse and civil discourse is necessary for progress.”
Some reports indicate that conservatives feel alienated and underrepresented in the perceived liberal-dominated media. Trump and other republican figures have previously associated “media” with a negative connotation. Satterfield, like many others, also believes that “media censorship is becoming a more prominent issue.” She further asserted that members of WLR feel overwhelmed by media outlets “constantly defending the Democratic Party.”
On the other hand, Ryan Choi, education chair for the Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA) at Georgia Tech, shared his belief that media is “favored more [towards] the established and capitalist class and incumbents.” Regarding government control, Choi said, “As socialist[s], mentally care about human rights. We [YDSA] do agree that big corporations have too much power. And we see that corporate power must be regulated, but the point of corporations is to improve society.” Choi emphasized the balance of government and corporation power to promote public and social good, rather than use such power for greed or control.
Choi agreed with the concurrence from the court, particularly with Judge Kentaji Jackson’s opinion: these cases require specificity and should be sent back to the lower courts, and that plaintiffs who bring about a facial challenge — meaning a challenge arguing that a law is unconstitutional in all or nearly all applications — have to “clear a high bar.”
“Georgia Tech being less involved in regulating speech is better. Being able to be exposed to ideas, especially being students, is important.”
Choi, like Satterfield, thinks generally that censorship only hurts discourse and progression. He added, “Georgia Tech being less involved in regulating speech is better. Being able to be exposed to ideas, especially being students, is important.”
As shown by its increasing shift toward swing state status, Georgia is a politically diverse state. Increasing polarization and varied discourse, both in Georgia and nationally, have caused growing concern regarding misinformation and public safety. Digital advocacy groups like the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), made up of over 50 nonprofits, debate the balance between MDM and public safety in their fight to defend free speech. NCAC provides direct advocacy by fighting censorship issues with community leaders, such as book bans, which are prominent in several states like Georgia, Texas, and Florida. NCAC’s impact is largely felt on a local level as they help educate students, teachers, artists, and others on First Amendment rights and free speech to empower activism.
Murthy v. Missouri
This case addresses a similar question to Moody v. NetChoice: How much control and influence should the government have over content creation and speech on online platforms? While Moody v. NetChoice deals with regulating the regulation of companies itself, Murthy v. Missouri deals with the government more directly influencing content on social media. Additionally, Murthy involves social media and misinformation.
“Government influence is a significant problem, [the] government pressuring platforms to take down speech is easier than ever before because of the concentration of the platform’s power over public discourse,”
The case involves two states and five social media users — including an epidemiologist, consumer and human rights advocates, an academic, and a media operator — who sued executive branch officials and agencies, claiming that the government pressured social media platforms to censor the users’ speech. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants engaged in acts of censorship through public statements and threats of regulatory action aiming to restrict certain content. Meanwhile, the defendants noted that their statements restricting content were only suggestions or requests aiming to combat misinformation, rather than demands.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing, as they did not provide sufficient evidence of near-term injury or demonstrate irreparable harm, which is defined as harm that is permanent or severe enough that later action would not restore the plaintiffs’ rights. In other words, the plaintiffs could not prove they had been harmed by the government’s actions. This ruling shows that the Court is cautious in determining government overreach, showing that tangible evidence of harm remains a high bar. As free speech cases continue to emerge and lead to increased polarization, these rulings provide frameworks the Court and lower courts will consider in cases involving the First Amendment. Today, social media plays a critical role in personal expression, political debate, and advocacy. Government influence on created content could impact the spread of information, shape the type of information people receive, and affect social movements and policy initiatives nationwide.
The Knight Institute, a non-profit organization established by Columbia University, seeks “to promote a system of free expression that is open and inclusive, that broadens and elevates public discourse, and that fosters creativity, accountability, and self-affective government.” Jennifer Jones, a staff attorney at the Knight Institute, gave some insight into the case: “This case forced the Court to find a balance between people’s right to speak and shape public discourse… and those whose speech might not be appropriate.”
While both Murthy v. Missouri and Moody v. NetChoice deal with conservative censorship specifically, Jones emphasized, “This is really an issue that [the case’s outcome] could affect all kinds of speech across the political spectrum.“
Government influence is a significant problem, [the] government pressuring platforms to take down speech is easier than ever before because of the concentration of the platform’s power over public discourse,” said Jones.
In Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, a precedent case to Murthy, the Court established that indirect actions from the government that cause censorship also violate the First Amendment. Specifically in this case, the Court ruled that the Rhode Island Commission’s action of trying to protect minors from offensive language or images by informally pressuring distributors to stop selling some publications of books was unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court still wanted to leave room for some government oversight for the public good. As Jones explained, “[The] Court wanted to leave space to tell intermediaries that if they publish certain speech it could have certain ramifications for certain public issues and safeties.” While the court acknowledged the government’s valid interest in protecting minors, the main issue was the informal and coercive tactics of the Rhode Island Commission that eliminated due process for booksellers and publishers.
Jones mentioned how it is “complicated to find a balance between consulting [in terms of the government providing and promoting public safety] and being coercive [placing restrictions that violate the First Amendment].” Jones further stated how tone is an influential factor in the Court’s decision process for these types of cases: “In deciding, this Court will look very specifically at the government actors’ word choice and tone and where they were particularly aggressive in communication… and how the recipient understood the information.”
Overall, Jones offered, “I think it’s wrong to interpret Murthy [the Murthy v. Missouri case] as the government will always be able to influence speech.” The Court is careful about how far government influence can go without becoming coercive.
As Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a nonprofit organization designed to defend digital rights, explained, the Court did not concretely answer “how does one distinguish permissible from impermissible government communications with social media platforms about the speech they publish,” adding that “while the Supreme Court did not tell us more about coercion, it did remind us that it is very hard to win lawsuits alleging coercion.”
As a takeaway from both Moody and Murthy, EFF suggested, “Social media platforms have a First Amendment right to moderate the speech any user sees, and, because they exercise that right routinely, a plaintiff who believes they have been jawboned must prove that it was because of the government’s dictate, not the platform’s own decision.”
The Supreme Court’s rulings from the summer of 2024 have sparked discussion about presidential power, free speech, environmental regulations, and governmental power. These decisions are reshaping the nation’s legal and political future, bringing attention to the growing tension between individual rights and governmental control. The application of these federal rulings to Georgia underscores how such decisions have far-reaching implications for both state-level policies and broader national governance. As public confidence and approval of the Supreme Court continue to decline, the long-term consequences of these rulings may deepen debate over the Court’s role in shaping American society and government.
