WASHINGTON, June 26 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court

declined on Wednesday to impose limits on the way President Joe

Biden's administration may communicate with social media

platforms, rejecting a challenge made on free speech grounds to

how officials encouraged the removal of posts deemed

misinformation, including about elections and COVID.

The justices, in a 6-3 ruling, overturned a lower court's

2023 decision that various federal officials likely violated the

U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, which protects against

governmental abridgment of free speech, in a case brought by the

states of Missouri and Louisiana and five individuals.

The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had

issued an injunction constraining such contacts by the

administration.

The justices ruled that the plaintiffs did not have the

required legal standing to sue the administration in federal

court.

The two Republican-led states and the individual social

media users in 2022 sued officials and agencies across the

federal government, including in the White House, FBI, surgeon

general's office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and

the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

The plaintiffs argued that the administration had violated

the rights of social media users whose posts were removed by

platforms including Facebook, YouTube, and

Twitter, now called X.

At issue was whether the administration crossed the line

from mere communication and persuasion to strong arming or

coercing platforms - sometimes called "jawboning" - to

unlawfully censor disfavored speech, as lower courts found.

Biden's administration argued that officials sought to

mitigate the hazards of online misinformation, including false

information about vaccines during the pandemic that they said

was causing preventable deaths, by alerting social media

companies to content that violated their own policies.

Many researchers, as well as liberals and Democrats, have

warned of the dangers of social media platforms amplifying

misinformation and disinformation about public health, vaccines

and election fraud.

Echoing concerns raised by Republicans and various voices on

the right, the plaintiffs argued that platforms, with their

content-moderation practices, suppressed conservative-leaning

speech. This is, the plaintiffs said, government coercion - a

form of state action barred by the First Amendment.

The Justice Department argued that government officials,

including presidents, long have used the bully pulpit to express

views and to inform on matters of public concern.

It also said that private entities that make decisions on

that information are not state actors as long as they are not

threatened with adverse consequences. The department said an

injunction limiting the administration's actions could chill

vital government communications, including to protect national

security.

The Supreme Court in October had put on hold an injunction

issued by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of

Appeals constraining the administration's contacts pending the

review by the justices of the case. The injunction barred an

array of government officials from communicating with platforms

regarding content moderation, such as urging the deletion of

certain posts.

Louisiana-based U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty issued a

preliminary injunction in July 2023. Doughty concluded that the

plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the

government helped suppress "disfavored conservative speech" on

mask-wearing, lockdowns and vaccines intended as public health

measures during the pandemic, or that questioned the validity of

the 2020 election in which Biden, a Democrat, defeated Donald

Trump, a Republican.

The 5th Circuit subsequently narrowed that order.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in March.

This was its latest ruling concerning free speech rights in

the digital age.

In another case involving the government and social media,

the justices in March decided that public officials can

sometimes be sued under the First Amendment for blocking critics

on social media. They set a new standard for determining if

public officials acted in a governmental capacity when blocking

critics on social media - a test to be applied in lawsuits

accusing them of violating the First Amendment.

The justices also are expected in the coming days to

rule on the legality of Republican-backed laws in Florida and

Texas intended to restrain social media companies from curbing

content that their platforms deem objectionable.