Supreme Court Rejects Laura Loomer's Appeal Against Social Media Companies

On October 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Laura Loomer, a far-right influencer and ally of former President Donald Trump, regarding her bans from social media platforms. Loomer, who was banned from Twitter in 2018 for "hateful" conduct and from Facebook in 2019 as a "dangerous individual," claimed that these actions severely impacted her congressional campaigns in Florida during the 2020 and 2022 elections. Her lawsuits alleged that social media companies, including X (formerly Twitter) and Meta Platforms (Facebook's parent company), conspired with advertisers to suppress her political speech.

New RepublicCNNUSA TodayCityLabThe Hill

Loomer's legal arguments centered on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), asserting that the companies engaged in a coordinated effort to censor her. However, both a federal judge and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed her claims, stating that she failed to provide a plausible argument that the companies violated RICO. The appeals court noted that Loomer's complaint merely suggested that the defendants shared common goals of profit and influence, which did not meet the legal standards required for a RICO case.

USA Today

Loomer's appeal also raised questions about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides broad immunity to social media platforms for content moderation decisions. Critics from both the left and right have called for reforms to this law, arguing that it allows platforms to evade accountability for harmful content. However, the Supreme Court has largely avoided addressing Section 230 in recent cases, including Loomer's, despite its significant implications for content moderation and free speech.

CNN

In her written arguments to the Supreme Court, Loomer emphasized the critical role of social media in modern political campaigns, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, which limited traditional campaigning methods. Her attorneys stated, "Loomer had no social media for any of her campaigns due to social media bans." Despite her significant following on X, where she was reinstated in 2022, Loomer has faced repeated legal setbacks in her attempts to challenge her bans.

CNN

Critics of Loomer's lawsuits argue that her claims lack substantive legal grounding and that the courts have consistently upheld the rights of social media companies to moderate content as they see fit. The dismissals of her cases reflect a broader judicial reluctance to engage with the complexities of social media regulation and the protections afforded by Section 230.

CNN

While Loomer alleges a coordinated effort to censor her, the courts have found no evidence supporting her claims of conspiracy among social media companies and advertisers. The lack of legal success raises questions about the validity of her assertions and the broader implications for free speech in the digital age.

New Republic

• “Social media is critical to campaigns, especially during COVID-19 restrictions that limited traditional campaigning methods like door-to-door canvassing and public events,” — Laura Loomer's attorneys

CNN

• “The operative complaint simply alleges that there was a RICO enterprise because the Defendants had the 'common goals of making money, acquiring influence over other enterprises and entities, and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests,’” — 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

USA Today

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear Loomer's appeal underscores the ongoing debate surrounding social media regulation and the protections afforded to platforms under Section 230.

CNN