[Enlightened1]

So plaintiffs couldn’t prove direct orders from government. Plausible deniability.

[CFW]

I'm seeing some legal analysis that says this is on the injunction itself and not the entire case.

"The SCOTUS ruled the plaintiffs had no standing to ask for the TEMPORARY INJUNCTION that basically would've ruled they win the case automatically.

The case does move forward."

---

If the plaintiffs don't have standing to ask for an injunction, I don't see how they have standing for the case to continue.

The issues before the court were as follows: "Issue(s): (1) Whether respondents have Article III standing; (2) whether the government’s challenged conduct transformed private social media companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated respondents’ First Amendment rights; and (3) whether the terms and breadth of the preliminary injunction are proper."

I read that as whether they have standing to bring the case, not whether they have standing to ask for ask for an injunction.

Now, I'm going to have to read the entire opinion.