A Louisiana case that could set new free speech standards in the digital age took center stage Monday at the U.S. Supreme Court where justices heard arguments about whether the Biden administration went too far in pressuring social media giants like Faceboot and X to remove posts containing misinformation about COVID-19.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill’s Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga represented his home state, Missouri and other plaintiffs in oral arguments contending Biden officials illegally supressed conservative voices about the pandemic, vaccines, Hunter Biden’s laptop and other hot-button issues.

In September 2023, a federal appeals court in New Orleans upheld Louisiana U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s order banning much of the Biden administration from communicating with social media companies like Facebook about controversial online posts.

Both orders were put on hold by the Supreme Court until it could hear the case.

On Monday, Aguinaga described the Biden officials’ actions as “arguably the most massive attack against free speech in American history.”

“Behind closed doors the government badgers the platforms 24/7, it abuses them with profanity, it warns that the highest levels of the White House are concerned and ominously says the White House is considering its options,” Aguinaga told the justices. “Under this onslaught the platforms routinely cave.”

Facebook recently acknowledged as much in an internal email to former United Kingdom deputy prime minister Nick Clegg “because we are under pressure by the administration. We shouldn’t have done it,” Aguinaga said.

Brian Fletcher, principle deputy solicitor general at the Justice Department, argued that the plaintiffs against the U.S. government “mistook persuasion for coersion,” saying the Biden administration was just using the “bully pulpit” to contradict dangerous misinformation as have previous administrations throughout U.S. history.

“(The government) can encourage, but not mandate,” Fletcher said. “We think that’s what the government is doing. Our position is there wasn’t any coersion.”

Fletcher continued the government’s argument that a prohibition of communication between U.S. officials and social media platforms could cause “grave harm” by preventing the government from “engaging in a vast range of lawful and responsible conduct.”

He said it could prevent agencies like the FBI from warning of dangerous misinformation about elections or possible terrorist threats.

Justice Sonia Sotomay said she had problems with the states’ arguments for not showing harm to the people they were representing. She said lawyers cited events that happened to the wrong people or contentious posts that were simply reposted by the litigants.

“I don’t know what to make of all this,” Sotomayor added. “I’m not sure how we get to prove direct injury in any way.”

The court is expected to rule on the case in early summer.

USA Today contributed to this report.

More: Supreme Court schedules Louisiana Facebook case accusing Biden of censorship

Greg Hilburn covers state politics for the USA TODAY Network of Louisiana. Follow him on Twitter @GregHilburn1