The Supreme Court refused to take up far-right provocateur Laura Loomer’s effort to sue social media companies over claims that they conspired to suppress her political speech as she ran for office, rejecting her latest appeal on Monday.
Loomer, who serves as the self-appointed “loyalty” enforcer for President Donald Trump and has become an increasingly influential outside adviser to the president in recent months, had previously sued Meta and Twitter – now known as X – over accusations that the companies had violated racketeering laws by removing her from their platforms.
Specifically, she claimed that the social media giants’ decision to ban her over “hateful conduct” – she was booted from Twitter in 2018 and the Meta-owned Facebook in 2019 – had done immense damage to her unsuccessful congressional campaigns in 2020 and 2022.
Loomer has since had her X account reinstated – and built it to 1.7 million followers – after Elon Musk purchased the site in 2022. Armed with a massive MAGA following, the self-described “proud Islamophobe” has not only become one of Trump’s most valued media influencers but has also been able to impact staffing decisions within the administration.
“Social media is critical to campaigns, especially during COVID-19 restrictions that limited traditional campaigning methods like door-to-door canvassing and public events,” her lawyers wrote in her Supreme Court appeal. “Loomer had no social media for any of her campaigns due to social media bans.”
Saying that these “issues are of paramount national importance, as they implicate the fairness of federal elections and the integrity of public discourse in the digital age,” Loomer’s attorneys said that the Supreme Court’s review would “provide critical clarity on these legal questions, ensure accountability for platforms and their collaborators, and safeguard democratic processes.”
The appeal also attempted to raise legal questions about the validity of Section 230, the law that essentially shields social media platforms from lawsuits related to content moderation, stating that because of Section 230, the companies “stifled” her ability to “communicate with voters, raise funds, and compete in federal elections.”
In the end, though, the high court denied Loomer’s writ of certiorari, with conservative justice Samuel Alito recusing himself from the consideration of the suit.
Her lawsuit, which cited the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, had repeatedly been shot down by lower courts over the past few years.
In 2023, for instance, a federal judge in California dismissed Loomer’s complaints against Meta and Twitter, with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreeing with the dismissal, saying that Loomer had no plausible argument that the companies violated the RICO Act.
“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,’” the court wrote earlier this year. “In sum, the district court properly dismissed the amended complaint and denied leave to amend.”
With Loomer having lost multiple times in the lower courts, both X and Meta brushed off responding to her appeal to the Supreme Court – suggesting that the companies did not take her case seriously.
Ultimately, it would appear they were right – based on the high court’s denial of her suit, which had been shut down at least four times before.
