The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to review conservative activist Laura Loomer’s appeal to revive her racketeering lawsuit against Meta Platforms Inc. and X Corp. (formerly Twitter), officially ending a years-long legal effort to accuse major tech companies of conspiring to suppress right-wing political speech.
Loomer, a controversial figure and former Republican congressional candidate in Florida, had argued that both companies worked together to silence her during her 2020 and 2022 election campaigns. She claimed their actions amounted to coordinated censorship designed to undermine her political outreach, fundraising, and engagement with voters.
The Supreme Court’s decision, issued without explanation, leaves intact earlier rulings that dismissed Loomer’s claims, solidifying a growing line of judicial opinions that uphold social media companies’ legal immunity in content moderation cases.
Loomer Claims Platforms Colluded to Undermine Her Campaigns
In her lawsuit, Loomer accused Meta and Twitter/X of collaborating to “deplatform” her by using their content policies to limit her political visibility. She argued that their moderation practices were influenced by “government pressure” and “corporate collusion” to suppress conservative messaging.
Loomer, who built her career as an activist and right-wing commentator, said these actions disrupted her ability to raise funds and communicate with constituents. According to her complaint, the alleged coordination among social media giants represented a broader campaign to influence public discourse and shape electoral outcomes.
The activist, who has been permanently banned from several platforms over violations of content rules, framed her lawsuit as part of a larger fight against what she views as politically motivated censorship in Silicon Valley.
Federal Court Finds No Evidence of Criminal Conspiracy
Loomer initially filed the case under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which allows civil suits against organizations accused of engaging in patterns of criminal conduct. However, in 2023, a federal district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that Loomer’s allegations did not demonstrate any unlawful conspiracy or racketeering activity.
The judge noted that her claims were nearly identical to earlier lawsuits she had filed and that they failed to present new or credible evidence. The court further ruled that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields Meta and X from liability related to user-generated content and moderation decisions.
Section 230, often regarded as one of the cornerstones of the internet, gives online platforms the freedom to moderate content without being treated as publishers of the material posted by users. The court emphasized that the companies’ actions fell within lawful business practices rather than criminal conduct, rejecting Loomer’s assertion that moderation constituted political targeting.
Appeals Court Upholds the Dismissal
Loomer appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but in March 2024, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The three-judge panel concluded that Loomer failed to establish a “RICO enterprise,” a key legal element required to prove her claims.
The appellate court found that her arguments reflected policy disagreements rather than evidence of a criminal enterprise. Judges also reaffirmed that under Section 230, social media platforms have broad discretion to enforce their community guidelines, including removing or restricting users who violate those terms.
By siding with Meta and X, the appellate ruling reinforced a growing body of legal precedent protecting social media companies from liability in content moderation disputes — even when the moderation decisions appear politically charged.
Appeal to the Supreme Court Cites Election Fairness Concerns
After the Ninth Circuit ruling, Loomer’s legal team filed a petition with the Supreme Court, urging it to hear her case on the grounds that it raised important constitutional and democratic issues. Her attorney, John Pierce, argued that the lawsuit highlighted “national concerns” over election integrity and the power of technology companies to influence political speech in the digital age.
The petition urged the justices to clarify whether private corporations, particularly those that dominate public communication, can act with impunity when their moderation practices allegedly affect electoral outcomes. Loomer and her lawyer framed the issue as a matter of democratic transparency and fairness rather than a simple business dispute.
However, none of the defendants — Meta, X Corp., or Procter & Gamble, which was also named in the complaint — chose to respond to the Supreme Court petition. Their silence signaled confidence that the justices would decline the case given the consistency of lower court decisions.
Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from considering the petition, though no reason was provided. The Supreme Court offered no written opinion, effectively bringing the matter to a close.
