Top Points
Supreme Court Denies Appeal: The Supreme Court refused to hear Rogan O’Handley’s appeal regarding his censorship lawsuit against California, upholding lower court decisions that dismissed his case for lack of standing.
California’s Role in Social Media Censorship: California’s Office of Election Cybersecurity flagged O’Handley’s posts as misinformation during the 2020 election, leading to his Twitter account suspension. This office was established to counteract election-related misinformation.
First Amendment Concerns: O’Handley’s petition sought to clarify the application of First Amendment protections on social media. However, the courts found that the collaboration between California officials and Twitter to remove misinformation did not constitute a constitutional violation.
Full Report:
In a blow to free speech advocates, the Supreme Court declined to hear Rogan O’Handley’s appeal last week. O’Handley, a vocal conservative commentator, argued that California overstepped constitutional boundaries by pressuring Twitter to censor his posts about the 2020 presidential election.
O’Handley’s Twitter account, now part of the rebranded platform X, was suspended after he claimed the 2020 election was rigged. California officials labeled his posts as election misinformation and flagged them to Twitter, leading to his account suspension. O’Handley sued both the state and the social media platform in federal court but lost.
This denial follows the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Murthy v. Missouri, where it ruled that individuals lacked legal standing to challenge federal influence over social media platforms. In legal terms, standing is the requirement for a party to show a sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.
Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter in October 2022 led to significant changes in the platform’s moderation policies, now operating as X. Despite these changes, the Supreme Court’s July 2 order denied the petition for certiorari in O’Handley v. Weber without dissent or explanation. For a case to advance, at least four of the nine justices must agree to hear it.
O’Handley’s petition detailed that California’s Office of Election Cybersecurity (OEC), established in 2018, was designed to monitor and counteract election-related misinformation. The OEC’s actions during the 2020 election cycle included a $35 million contract with political consultants to identify misinformation, which was then flagged to social media platforms for removal.
O’Handley’s issues began in November 2020, when he posted that every ballot in California should be audited, claiming widespread election fraud. Twitter subsequently labeled his post as “disputed” and reduced its visibility after the OEC flagged it as an “orange level” threat. This action led to repeated flagging and eventual suspension of his account in February 2021, which remained inactive for nearly two years.
The federal district court dismissed O’Handley’s lawsuit, citing a lack of standing and concluding that Twitter acted independently in accordance with its policies. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld this dismissal, acknowledging a potential causal link between the OEC’s actions and O’Handley’s account suspension but maintaining that California’s and Twitter’s collaboration did not constitute a constitutional violation.
O’Handley’s petition to the Supreme Court aimed to reinforce the application of First Amendment protections to social media. However, California argued that the petition should be dismissed as it involved past actions and did not present an ongoing controversy.
California Department of Justice attorney Mica Moore, representing Secretary of State Shirley Weber, declined to comment. The Epoch Times reached out to O’Handley’s attorney Taylor Meehan and X Corp.’s attorney Ari Holtzblatt for comments, but no responses were received at the time of publication.
Original Story by Matthew Vadum
.png)
Comments