• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, March 4, 2025

The Supreme Court has asked Meta Platforms to respond to a petition filed by the anti-vaccine nonprofit Children's Health Defense -- an organization formerly led by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. -- which is seeking to revive claims over the suppression of its posts and fundraising efforts on Facebook.

The move suggests that at least one justice is interested in the battle between Meta and Children's Health Defense, but doesn't mean the court will agree to hear the case.

The dispute dates to August 2020, when the Children's Health Defense alleged in a lawsuit that a fund-raising tool it used on Facebook was deactivated by the company. The group also alleged that some of its posts were labeled as false, and that some of its content was demoted or banned.

Children's Health Defense claimed those moves violated the First Amendment, arguing that Facebook was a “state actor” -- meaning equivalent to the government -- when it took steps to prevent the spread of the group's posts.

Children's Health Defense proposed several theories to support its argument, including that Facebook and the government worked together to censor speech, and that Facebook allegedly changed its vaccine-related policies due to “coercion” by lawmakers.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston in the Northern District of California dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that even if the group's allegations were proven true, they wouldn't show that the government coerced Facebook.

The organization then appealed to the 9th Circuit, which ruled 2-1 for Meta.

“Meta has a First Amendment right to use its platform to promote views it finds congenial and to refrain from promoting views it finds distasteful,” 9th Circuit Court Judge Eric Miller, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, wrote last year in an opinion joined by U.S. District Court Judge Edward Korman.

Circuit Judge Daniel Collins, also a Trump appointee, dissented, writing that he would have allowed the Children's Health Defense to pursue a request for an injunction against Meta.

The Children's Health Defense had argued that federal officials unduly pressured Meta in several ways, including by criticizing the company for spreading anti-vaccine propaganda.

The group called attention to a letter sent in 2019 by former Representative and current Senator Adam Schiff (D-California), which accused Facebook and Instagram of “surfacing and recommending messages that discourage parents from vaccinating their children.”

Soon after Schiff sent the letter, Facebook announced new policies aimed at cracking down on anti-vaxxers -- including removing access to fundraising tools for groups that spread false news about vaccinations. Children's Health Defense was among the groups affected by the change in policy. (The group denies being “anti-vaccine” and describes itself as advocating “for informed patient consent based on full disclosure of all relevant medical information.”)

The 9th Circuit majority found that even if those allegations were proven true, they wouldn't show that the government coerced Meta into reversing its policies.

“Meta evidently believes that vaccines are safe and effective and that their use should be encouraged. It does not lose the right to promote those views simply because they happen to be shared by the government,” Miller wrote.

He added that Schiff's letter “did not require Meta to take any particular action and did not threaten penalties for noncompliance.”

The Children's Health Defense is now asking the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of that ruling. The group noted in papers filed three weeks ago that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently told podcaster Joe Rogan that the company faced “massive institutional pressure to basically start censoring content on ideological grounds.”

Meta initially waived its right to respond to the Children's Health Defense's petition, but late last week the Supreme Court said it wanted to hear from the platform by no later than March 31. The Supreme Court rejects most petitions seeking review, but asking for a response slightly increases the likelihood it will hear the case, according to a 2018 Bloomberg Law report.