The Supreme Court declined Monday to take up an appeal from Laura Loomer, the prominent far-right influencer and ally of President Donald Trump who sued social media companies for yanking her off their platforms.
Loomer, who had previously sued X and Facebook-owner Meta Platforms, filed a new lawsuit alleging the companies violated civil racketeering laws by deplatforming her as she ran for Congress in Florida in 2020 and 2022.
Among other things, her appeal raised legal questions about the scope of a law known as Section 230 that immunizes social media sites from lawsuits involving content moderation. That immunity has been widely criticized on both the left and the right for different reasons, though the high court has largely avoided delving into the issue.
Loomer told the Supreme Court in written arguments that the decisions to remove her from the platforms “stifled” her ability to “communicate with voters, raise funds, and compete in federal elections.”
“Social media is critical to campaigns, especially during COVID-19 restrictions that limited traditional campaigning methods like door-to-door canvassing and public events,” her attorneys told the Supreme Court in her appeal. “Loomer had no social media for any of her campaigns due to social media bans.”
But Loomer repeatedly lost in lower courts. Both X and Meta waived their right to respond to her appeal at the Supreme Court – a sign that the companies did not take it seriously – and the court declined to hear the appeal even though it was not briefed.
Armed with more than 1.7 million followers on X, where she was reinstated, Loomer has taken on the self-appointed role of “loyalty enforcer,” scrutinizing the backgrounds of various administration officials for any inkling they once harbored doubts about the president.
In a pair of cases in 2023, the Supreme Court had an opportunity to make sweeping changes to Section 230 but instead issued more narrow decisions that preserved the companies’ ability to avoid lawsuits stemming from terrorist-related content.
