The Supreme Court's latest ruling did not strike down big text censorship.

I'm Virginia Allen and this is the Daily Signal Top News for Wednesday, June 26. The Supreme Court issued its ruling on the free speech case, Murphy versus Missouri this morning.

The court struck down a lower court's injunction, preventing the federal government from pressuring big tech companies to suppress free speech.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case.

The court did not rule on the question of whether the government may pressure social media companies to suppress speech in a way that would be illegal for the government to do itself.

Justice Amy Koney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, she said, we begin and end with standing.

At this stage, neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established standing to seek an injunction against any defendant.

We therefore lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of the dispute.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Justice

Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

Alito wrote that if the lower court's evidence is correct,

this is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this court in years.

Tyler O'Neill has been covering this case for the Daily Signal. He joins us now.

Tyler, thanks for being here.

Thanks for having me.

So let's start off with this article. Now, Tyler, thanks for being here. Thanks for having me.

So let's start off with this Article III standing issue.

What exactly does this mean when the court said

that the plaintiffs failed to establish Article 3 standing.

Yes, so standing is a very important aspect of any court case

because it shows that the particular plaintiffs are harmed and actually have a specific claim that they themselves

must have adjudicated by the court. And so this is a very important bar that every

...