Here's an opinion from Brian Cates on that ruling. Essentially it was ruling that the plaintiffs did not have standing for the temporary injunction whilst the case is being processed. Not throwing out the decision, as it has not been argued yet.
"
To get TECHNICAL on the SCOTUS ruling today on the Missouri v Biden temporary injunction sought by the plaintiffs:
The plaintiffs in Missouri v Biden - the state AG's of Missouri and Louisiana - asked the SCOTUS to grant them a TEMPORARY INJUNCTION that forbid Big Tech companies [X, FB, Youtube, Instagram, etc] from censoring their users using cutout NGO's.
This temporary injunction would stop Big Tech & Big Gov't from continuing to coordinate behind the scenes as the case moves forward, is argued, and then the SCOTUS issues its ruling.
Which hasn't happened yet.
Got that?
Neither side has presented its case yet.
All that's been argued before SCOTUS thus far is the request from the plaintiffs for a temp injunction that would stop the defendants from continuing their censorious behavior while the case is moving through the courts.
Today, SCOTUS ruled that the plaintiffs DO NOT HAVE STANDING to request this temporary injunction, and have denied it.
So until the case itself is heard, and the SCOTUS issues its ruling - probably in the next term - Big Tech and Big Gov't can continue to use NGO's to target speech on social media.
However, I would point that many of these NGO's are already disbanding, such as Stanford Internet Observatory, because they know what's coming."