States and social-media users alleged that federal officials coerced or significantly encouraged platforms to suppress disfavored speech. The lower courts entered broad injunctive relief. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they had not tied particular past moderation decisions or a sufficiently likely future injury to the conduct of identified federal defendants. Social-media platforms independently applied their own policies, and the record did not establish that an injunction against federal officials would redress the asserted injuries. The judgment was reversed without resolving the underlying First Amendment theories.