From JC

In one of last month’s few disappointing Supreme Court decisions, Missouri v. Biden, the Court found that the Plaintiffs had not yet proved standing to support their preliminary injunction. The Court’s rationale was the Plaintiffs hadn’t tied their censorship directly to a particular government action and sent the case back to Lousiana for further proceedings. It was a disappointing result.

But in a surprising development, it may have been a win after all.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., also sued on the same theory. His case was consolidated with the original Plaintiffs’ case in Lousiana. But unlike the other Plaintiffs, Kennedy did prove a clear, direct link to his censorship. And yesterday his attorneys rushed to argue that fact in the original Lousiana court that issued the injunction:

Since the Lousiana court thought even the original Plaintiffs had standing to support the injunction, and because the Supreme Court painstakingly described how a plaintiff could prove standing, it seems likely the Lousiana court will agree with Kennedy’s lawyers. The government’s emails directing social media platforms to censor Kennedy mention him by name.

So the original injunction could be put right back in place shortly, and what looked like a loss in the Supreme Court could have been a victory instead.

The key was that the Supreme Court never considered Kennedy’s consolidated case, because the appeal only included the original Plaintiffs. If this plays out like it appears it will, the Supreme Court will have upheld a strict standing rule, gave the government what looked like a political win (and gave itself some political cover for the next batch of decisions), but also gave Louisiana judge Terry Doughty just what he needed to keep the injunction in place.