The US Supreme Court has thrown a new spotlight on Meta by demanding the tech giant formally address a lawsuit from Children’s Health Defense (CHD), which accuses the company of working with government officials to suppress speech on its platforms.
CHD had petitioned the Supreme Court in January after the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals dismissed its lawsuit. Meta initially opted not to respond to the petition, but the Supreme Court has now ordered the company to file a reply by March 31, signaling that at least some justices believe the case merits further consideration.
CHD CEO Mary Holland views this move as an encouraging sign. “We see this as a good sign. When we asked the Supreme Court to hear our case, Meta declined to file a reply, even though it had the right to do so. This latest move by the Supreme Court may delay the court’s final decision on whether it will hear our case, but it also suggests the court has questions that it believes Meta should address,” she told The Defender.
The lawsuit dates back to November 2020, when CHD accused Facebook of censoring its content at the request of the Biden administration. The organization argues that posts discussing vaccine risks, alternative COVID-19 treatments, and natural immunity — content it believes should be protected under the First Amendment — were systematically removed or restricted.
Facebook has already been taking action against CHD since 2019, limiting the reach of its posts and removing content related to COVID-19 treatments, vaccine concerns, and criticism of mainstream health narratives. The crackdown escalated in August 2022, when Meta, the company’s new name since 2021, completely banned CHD from both Facebook and Instagram, a move it has yet to reverse.
CHD suffered another setback on August 9, 2024, when the 9th Circuit ruled against it. But with the Supreme Court now instructing Meta to respond, the case has regained momentum.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has admitted that his company caved to government pressure during the pandemic. Speaking with Joe Rogan, he disclosed that officials “would call up our team and, like, scream at them and curse” to ensure content that challenged official narratives was suppressed. While Meta has since scrapped its third-party fact-checking program, CHD argues that Zuckerberg’s comments contradict the company’s legal claims that its censorship decisions were made independently of government influence.
Following these revelations, CHD sent a letter to the Supreme Court pointing out the inconsistencies in Meta’s legal defense. Attorney Roger Teich, representing CHD, believes the Supreme Court’s directive to Meta could be a crucial turning point.
“Our state-action allegations cut across easy political characterizations. Of course, Zuckerberg’s kowtowing to the new administration while continuing to censor CHD may also be a factor that gives us perhaps a fighting chance that the Court may want to review this issue,” he said.
