Murthy v. Missouri Revisions: 6/26/24

Liberty012

Murthy v. Missouri involved First Amendment claims regarding government pressure on social media platforms. Without the full opinion, the structural mechanics—whether the Court upheld or rejected liberty protections against government coercion of private entities—cannot be reliably determined. The title and summary alone do not provide sufficient textual anchor to ground a directional score.

Federalist 84 · Hamilton (1788)

“The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex-post-facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY… are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it [the original constitution] contains.”

In plain EnglishHamilton is listing your most important protections: (1) the government can’t lock you up without telling a judge why (habeas corpus), (2) can’t punish you for something that wasn’t a crime when you did it (ex-post-facto), and (3) nobody gets a fancy title that puts them above the law. These three rules are what really keep you free.

Equality Before the Law012

Murthy v. Missouri did not primarily concern equal application of a rule across similarly situated parties. The case centered on First Amendment and separation-of-powers questions regarding government-platform interaction. Without the opinion text, no reliable assessment of equality-principle engagement is possible.

U.S. Constitution, Article I §9 · Framers (1787)

“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

In plain EnglishThe Constitution says: Congress can’t write a law that points at one specific person or group and punishes them (bill of attainder), and can’t punish you today for something that was perfectly legal yesterday (ex post facto). Laws have to apply to everyone the same way.

Consent of the Governed012

A Supreme Court ruling on First Amendment and government-platform relations does not inherently engage the consent principle unless the opinion addresses whether legislative authorization, executive delegation, or democratic participation mechanisms were properly invoked or constrained. The title and summary do not reveal such engagement.

Federalist 22 · Hamilton (1787)

“The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.”

In plain EnglishHamilton is saying: government only has real authority when the people agree to let it rule. Power comes from us — not from kings, not from elites deciding what’s best for everyone. If the people don’t consent, the government is acting without permission.

Limited & Divided Power012

Murthy v. Missouri involved claims that executive officials exceeded their authority by pressuring social media platforms to remove content. The case inherently implicates whether executive power was properly bounded and whether courts have authority to review such conduct. However, without the opinion text, the Court's resolution of these structural questions—and whether it reinforced or relaxed limits on executive action—cannot be reliably scored.

Federalist 51 · Madison (1788)

“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition… the interior structure of the government… its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.”

In plain EnglishMadison is saying: don’t trust the people in power to behave on their own. Set up the government so that different parts of it have to watch each other. When each branch is trying to protect its own turf, they keep each other honest — and nobody grabs too much power.

Rule of Law012

Murthy v. Missouri presented questions of whether courts can review alleged government pressure on private platforms and whether such conduct is subject to defined legal standards. The case implicates rule-of-law concerns about procedural regularity, judicial review, and whether executive action is constrained by law. The opinion's resolution of justiciability and the standard of review would directly determine the rule-of-law score, but that text is unavailable.

Novanglus No. 7 · John Adams (1774)

“A government of laws, and not of men.”

In plain EnglishAdams is saying: the country should be run by rules that everyone — including the president — has to follow. Not by whatever one powerful person decides to do today. The law is the boss, not any single person.

Minority Protection012

Murthy v. Missouri did not primarily concern whether a majority was using legitimate government channels to constrict a minority's access to rights or institutional standing. The case centered on First Amendment and executive-authority questions. Neither sub-element (6a individual minority rights or 6b sub-federal autonomy) is clearly engaged by the case caption or summary alone.

Federalist 10 · Madison (1787)

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens… united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to… the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

In plain EnglishMadison is warning: when a big group of people all want the same thing, they can use their numbers to hurt people who aren’t part of their group. The Constitution was specifically designed so that the majority — no matter how big — can’t just vote away other people’s rights.

Who is accountable · contributions

Issuing / supporting

Judicial review

Run Your Own Evaluation