Federal and state law distinguish between two kinds of payments to public officials—bribes and gratuities. Bribes are typically payments made or agreed to before an official act in order to influence the public official with respect to that future official act. Gratuities are typically payments made to a public official after an official act as a reward or token of appreciation. While American law generally treats bribes as inherently corrupt and unlawful, the law’s treatment of gratuities is more nuanced. Some gratuities might be innocuous, and others may raise ethical and appearance concerns. Federal, state, and local governments have drawn different lines on which gratuities and gifts are acceptable and which are not.

  For example, Congress has established comprehensive prohibitions on both bribes and gratuities to federal officials. If a federal official accepts a bribe for an official act, federal bribery law provides for a 15-year maximum prison sentence. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b). By contrast, if a federal official accepts a prohibited gratuity, federal gratuities law sets a 2-year maximum prison sentence. See §201(c).

  In 1984, Congress passed and President Reagan signed a law now codified at 18 U. S. C. §666 that, as relevant here, extended the gratuities prohibition in §201(c) to most state and local officials. Congress reversed course after two years and amended §666 to avoid the law’s “possible application to acceptable commercial and business practices.” H. R. Rep. No. 99–797, p. 30 (1986). As amended, the text of §666 now closely resembles the bribery provision for federal officials, §201(b), and makes it a crime for most state and local officials to “corruptly” solicit, accept, or agree to accept “anything of value” “intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with” any official business or transaction worth $5,000 or more. §§666(a)(1)(B), (b). That crime carries a 10-year maximum prison sentence. §666(a).

  This case involves James Snyder, who is the former mayor of Portage, Indiana. In 2013, while Snyder was mayor, Portage awarded two contracts to a local truck company, Great Lakes Peterbilt, and ultimately purchased five trash trucks from the company for about $1.1 million. In 2014, Peterbilt cut a $13,000 check to Snyder. The FBI and federal prosecutors suspected that the payment was a gratuity for the City’s trash truck contracts. But Snyder said that the payment was for his consulting services as a contractor for Peterbilt. A federal jury ultimately convicted Snyder of accepting an illegal gratuity in violation of §666(a)(1)(B). The District Court sentenced Snyder to 1 year and 9 months in prison. On appeal, Snyder argued that §666 criminalizes only bribes, not gratuities. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Snyder’s conviction.

Held: Section 666 proscribes bribes to state and local officials but does not make it a crime for those officials to accept gratuities for their past acts. Pp. 7–16.

  (a) Six reasons, taken together, lead the Court to conclude that §666 is a bribery statute and not a gratuities statute—text, statutory history, statutory structure, statutory punishments, federalism, and fair notice. Pp. 7–14.

   (1) The statutory text strongly suggests that §666—like §201(b)—is a bribery statute, not a gratuities statute. The dividing line between §201(b)’s bribery provision and §201(c)’s gratuities provision is that bribery requires an official to have a corrupt state of mind and to accept (or agree to accept) a payment intending to be influenced in an official act. Section 666 shares the defining characteristics of §201(b)’s bribery provision. By contrast, §666 bears little resemblance to §201(c), which contains no express mens rea requirement. Pp. 7–8.

   (2) The statutory history reinforces that result. When enacted, §666 borrowed language from §201(c), the gratuities statute for federal officials. Two years later, Congress amended §666 to model it instead on §201(b), the bribery statute. It would be strange to interpret §666, as the Government suggests, to mean the same thing now that it did before the amendment. Pp. 8–9.

   (3) Statutory structure reinforces that §666 is a bribery statute, not a two-for-one bribery-and-gratuities statute as the Government posits. The Government identifies no other provision in the U. S. Code that prohibits bribes and gratuities in the same provision. And §201 does not do so. That is because bribery and gratuities are “two separate crimes” with “two different sets of elements.” United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal., 526 U. S. 398, 404. P. 9.

   (4) For federal officials, Congress has separated bribery and gratuities into two distinct provisions of §201 for good reason: The crimes receive different punishments that “reflect their relative seriousness.” Sun-Diamond, 526 U. S., at 405. For example, accepting a bribe as a federal official is punishable by up to 15 years in prison, while accepting an illegal gratuity as a federal official is punishable by up to only 2 years. If the Government were correct that §666 also covered gratuities, Congress would have inexplicably authorized punishing gratuities to state and local officials five times more severely than gratuities to federal officials—10 years for state and local officials compared to 2 years for federal officials. The Government cannot explain why Congress would have created such substantial sentencing disparities. Pp. 9–10.

   (5) Interpreting §666 as a gratuities statute would significantly infringe on bedrock federalism principles. Generally, States have the “prerogative to regulate the permissible scope of interactions between state officials and their constituents.” McDonnell v. United States, 579 U. S. 550, 576. The differing approaches by the state and local governments reflect policy judgments about when gifts expressing appreciation to public officials for their past acts cross the line from the innocuous to the problematic. Those carefully calibrated policy decisions would be gutted if the Court were to accept the Government’s interpretation of §666. Reading §666 to create a federal prohibition on gratuities would suddenly subject 19 million state and local officials to a new and different regulatory regime for gratuities. The Court should hesitate before concluding that Congress prohibited gratuities that state and local governments have allowed. After all, Congress does not lightly override state and local governments on such core matters of state and local governance. Pp. 10–11.

   (6) The Government’s interpretation of the statute would create traps for unwary state and local officials. Sun-Diamond, 526 U. S., at 411. The Government says that the statute would not cover “innocuous” or “obviously benign” gratuities, but the Government does not identify any remotely clear lines separating such a gratuity from a criminal gratuity. The Government simply opines that state and local officials may not accept wrongful gratuities. The Government’s so-called guidance would leave state and local officials entirely at sea to guess about what gifts they are allowed to accept under federal law, with the threat of up to 10 years in federal prison if they happen to guess wrong. That is not how federal criminal law works. And the Court has rejected the view that it should construe a criminal statute on the assumption that the Government will use it responsibly. See McDonnell, 579 U. S., at 576. Pp. 11–14.

  (b) Faced with the phalanx of difficulties with its interpretation of §666, the Government’s argument boils down to one main point—that §666 uses the term “rewarded” as well as “influenced.” The Government says that Congress would not have added the term “rewarded” to “influenced” in §666 if the statute were meant to cover only bribes and not also gratuities. That argument is misconceived. Contrary to the premise of the Government’s argument, bribery statutes sometimes use the term “reward.” See, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §600; 33 U. S. C. §447. Moreover, without the term “rewarded” in §666, an official might try to defend against a bribery charge by saying that the payment was received only after the official act and therefore could not have “influenced” the act. By including the term “rewarded,” Congress made clear that the timing of the agreement is the key, not the timing of payment. Although a gratuity or reward offered and accepted by a state or local official after the official act may be unethical or illegal under other federal, state, or local laws, the gratuity does not violate §666. Pp. 14–16.

71 F. 4th 555, reversed and remanded.

 Kavanaugh, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a concurring opinion. Jackson, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ., joined.

Under their longstanding content-moderation policies, social-media platforms have taken a range of actions to suppress certain categories of speech, including speech they judge to be false or misleading. In 2020, with the outbreak of COVID–19, the platforms announced that they would enforce these policies against users who post false or misleading content about the pandemic. The platforms also applied misinformation policies during the 2020 election season. During that period, various federal officials regularly spoke with the platforms about COVID–19 and election-related misinformation. For example, White House officials publicly and privately called on the platforms to do more to address vaccine misinformation. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued a health advisory that encouraged the platforms to take steps to prevent COVID–19 misinformation “from taking hold.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention alerted the platforms to COVID–19 misinformation trends and flagged example posts. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency communicated with the platforms about election-related misinformation in advance of the 2020 Presidential election and the 2022 midterms.

  Respondents are two States and five individual social-media users who sued dozens of Executive Branch officials and agencies, alleging that the Government pressured the platforms to censor their speech in violation of the First Amendment. Following extensive discovery, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that both the state plaintiffs and the individual plaintiffs had Article III standing to seek injunctive relief. On the merits, the court held that the Government entities and officials, by “coerc[ing]” or “significantly encourag[ing]” the platforms’ moderation decisions, transformed those decisions into state action. The court then modified the District Court’s injunction to state that the defendants shall not coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to suppress protected speech on their platforms.

Held: Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. Pp. 8–29.

  (a) Article III’s “case or controversy” requirement is “fundamental” to the “proper role” of the Judiciary. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811, 818. A proper case or controversy exists only when at least one plaintiff “establish[es] that [she] ha[s] standing to sue,” ibid.—i.e., that she has suffered, or will suffer, an injury that is “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling,” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 409. Here, the plaintiffs’ theories of standing depend on the platforms’ actions—yet the plaintiffs do not seek to enjoin the platforms from restricting any posts or accounts. Instead, they seek to enjoin the Government agencies and officials from pressuring or encouraging the platforms to suppress protected speech in the future.

 The one-step-removed, anticipatory nature of the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries presents two particular challenges. First, it is a bedrock principle that a federal court cannot redress “injury that results from the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 41–42. Second, because the plaintiffs request forward-looking relief, they must face “a real and immediate threat of repeated injury.” O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488, 496. Putting these requirements together, the plaintiffs must show a substantial risk that, in the near future, at least one platform will restrict the speech of at least one plaintiff in response to the actions of at least one Government defendant. Here, at the preliminary injunction stage, they must show that they are likely to succeed in carrying that burden. On the record in this case, that is a tall order. Pp. 8–10.

 (b) The plaintiffs’ primary theory of standing involves their “direct censorship injuries.” Pp. 10–26.

  (1) The Court first considers whether the plaintiffs have demonstrated traceability for their past injuries. Because the plaintiffs are seeking only forward-looking relief, the past injuries are relevant only for their predictive value. The primary weakness in the record of past restrictions is the lack of specific causation findings with respect to any discrete instance of content moderation. And while the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices, the evidence indicates that the platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment. The Fifth Circuit, by attributing every platform decision at least in part to the defendants, glossed over complexities in the evidence. The Fifth Circuit also erred by treating the defendants, plaintiffs, and platforms each as a unified whole. Because “standing is not dispensed in gross,” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. 413, 431, “plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each claim they press” against each defendant, “and for each form of relief they seek,” ibid. This requires a threshold showing that a particular defendant pressured a particular platform to censor a particular topic before that platform suppressed a particular plaintiff’s speech on that topic. Complicating the plaintiffs’ effort to demonstrate that each platform acted due to Government coercion, rather than its own judgment, is the fact that the platforms began to suppress the plaintiffs’ COVID–19 content before the defendants’ challenged communications started. Pp. 10–14.

  (2) The plaintiffs fail, by and large, to link their past social-media restrictions and the defendants’ communications with the platforms. The state plaintiffs, Louisiana and Missouri, refer only to action taken by Facebook against a Louisiana state representative’s post about children and the COVID–19 vaccine. But they never say when Facebook took action against the official’s post—a critical fact in establishing a causal link. Nor have the three plaintiff doctors established a likelihood that their past restrictions are traceable to either the White House officials or the CDC. They highlight restrictions imposed by Twitter and LinkedIn, but point only to Facebook’s communications with White House officials. Plaintiff Jim Hoft, who runs a news website, experienced election-related restrictions on various platforms. He points to the FBI’s role in the platforms’ adoption of hacked-material policies and claims that Twitter restricted his content pursuant to those policies. Yet Hoft’s declaration reveals that Twitter took action according to its own rules against posting private, intimate media without consent. Hoft does not provide evidence that his past injuries are likely traceable to the FBI or CISA. Plaintiff Jill Hines, a healthcare activist, faced COVID–19-related restrictions on Facebook. Though she makes the best showing of all the plaintiffs, most of the lines she draws are tenuous. Plus, Facebook started targeting her content before almost all of its communications with the White House and the CDC, thus weakening the inference that her subsequent restrictions are likely traceable to Government-coerced enforcement of Facebook’s policies. Even assuming Hines can eke out a showing of traceability, the past is relevant only insofar as it predicts the future. Pp. 14–21.

  (3) To obtain forward-looking relief, the plaintiffs must establish a substantial risk of future injury that is traceable to the Government defendants and likely to be redressed by an injunction against them. The plaintiffs who have not pointed to any past restrictions likely traceable to the Government defendants (i.e., everyone other than Hines) are ill suited to the task of establishing their standing to seek forward-looking relief. But even Hines, with her superior showing on past harm, has not shown enough to demonstrate likely future harm at the hands of these defendants. On this record, it appears that the frequent, intense communications that took place in 2021 between the Government defendants and the platforms had considerably subsided by 2022, when Hines filed suit. Thus it is “no more than conjecture” to assume that Hines will be subject to Government-induced content moderation. Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 108.

 The plaintiffs’ counterarguments are unpersuasive. First, they argue that they suffer “continuing, present adverse effects” from their past restrictions, as they must now self-censor on social media. O’Shea, 414 U. S., at 496. But the plaintiffs “cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.” Clapper, 568 U. S., at 416. Second, the plaintiffs suggest that the platforms continue to suppress their speech according to policies initially adopted under Government pressure. But the plaintiffs have a redressability problem. Without evidence of continued pressure from the defendants, the platforms remain free to enforce, or not to enforce, their policies—even those tainted by initial governmental coercion. And the available evidence indicates that the platforms have continued to enforce their policies against COVID–19 misinformation even as the Federal Government has wound down its own pandemic response measures. Enjoining the Government defendants, therefore, is unlikely to affect the platforms’ content-moderation decisions. Pp. 21–27.

 (c) The plaintiffs next assert a “right to listen” theory of standing. The individual plaintiffs argue that the First Amendment protects their interest in reading and engaging with the content of other speakers on social media. This theory is startlingly broad, as it would grant all social-media users the right to sue over someone else’s censorship—at least so long as they claim an interest in that person’s speech. While the Court has recognized a “First Amendment right to receive information and ideas,” the Court has identified a cognizable injury only where the listener has a concrete, specific connection to the speaker. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753, 762. Attempting to satisfy this requirement, the plaintiffs emphasize that hearing unfettered speech on social media is critical to their work as scientists, pundits, and activists. But they do not point to any specific instance of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm. They have therefore failed to establish an injury that is sufficiently “concrete and particularized.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560. The state plaintiffs assert a sovereign interest in hearing from their citizens on social media, but they have not identified any specific speakers or topics that they have been unable to hear or follow. And States do not have third-party “standing as parens patriae to bring an action against the Federal Government” on behalf of their citizens who have faced social-media restrictions. Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U. S. 255, 295. Pp. 27–28.

83 F. 4th 350, reversed and remanded.

 Barrett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Gorsuch, JJ., joined.