The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review an appeal from Laura Loomer, a right-wing commentator and former political candidate, who claimed that major social media platforms worked together to censor her political speech. The decision leaves in place lower court rulings that dismissed her lawsuit against Meta Platforms and X Corp., formerly known as Twitter.
Loomer’s suit accused the companies of violating federal racketeering laws by removing her from their platforms during her 2020 and 2022 congressional campaigns in Florida. She argued that the bans, which occurred as she sought public office, unfairly restricted her ability to reach voters, fundraise and participate in political debate by preventing her from using social media. Her complaint also challenged the broad legal protections that shield technology companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which shields companies from lawsuits over moderation decisions.
In her appeal to the Supreme Court, Loomer contended that the platforms’ actions undermined democratic participation in the digital era, particularly when online outreach became a central campaign tool during the COVID-19 pandemic. Her legal team described the case as an opportunity for the justices to clarify how far Section 230 immunity extends and whether large tech firms can be held accountable when removing political candidates from their services.
A federal court previously rejected Loomer’s claims, ruling that Meta and X acted within their rights as private companies and that their decisions did not amount to an unlawful conspiracy. The court also found that Loomer’s racketeering allegations failed to meet the necessary legal standards, describing her claims as ordinary business actions rather than criminal conduct. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling earlier this year.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, Meta, X, and another named defendant, Procter & Gamble, chose not to submit formal responses — a move that suggested confidence in their prior victories. The Court declined to take up the case without comment. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from consideration.
Loomer, who has built a large online following and remains active on X after being reinstated, has positioned herself as an outspoken critic of what she calls political bias. Her social media presence continues to focus on loyalty to President Donald Trump and criticism of perceived opponents within the conservative movement.
The Supreme Court’s decision reflects its continued caution in addressing Section 230, a law that has faced scrutiny from both political parties. Although some lawmakers have urged reforms to hold online platforms more accountable, the Court has repeatedly chosen narrow rulings that preserve the existing protections for tech companies. For now, those safeguards remain largely intact, and Loomer’s long-running legal challenge appears to have reached its end.
