In a closely watched case involving state regulation of social media platforms, the U.S. Supreme Court has vacated lower court rulings and sent challenges to laws in Texas and Florida back for further consideration.
The decision, announced today, leaves open significant questions about how the First Amendment applies to content moderation practices of major tech companies.
The cases, involving laws in Texas and Florida that aim to restrict how social media platforms moderate user content, were brought by NetChoice, a tech industry trade group representing companies like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. NetChoice argued that the laws violate platforms’ First Amendment rights by compelling them to host speech they disagree with.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that NetChoice failed to meet the high bar required for facial challenges to laws.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, stated that the lower courts did not properly analyze whether the laws are unconstitutional in a “substantial number of applications” compared to their “plainly legitimate sweep.”
The Court acknowledged that some applications of the laws, particularly to major platforms’ main feeds, may raise First Amendment concerns.
However, it declined to definitively rule on those issues, citing the need for more factual development about how various platforms operate and moderate content.
“While the governing constitutional principles are straightforward, applying them in one fell swoop to the entire social-media universe is not,” wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a concurring opinion.
The decision sends the cases back to lower courts for a more comprehensive analysis of how the laws apply to different platforms and functions.
This leaves open the possibility that portions of the laws could eventually be upheld while others are struck down.
Proponents of the laws, including Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, hailed the decision as a victory for free speech online.
Critics warned that it leaves the door open for government interference in private companies’ editorial decisions.
The ruling sets the stage for continued legal battles over the intersection of social media, free speech, and government regulation.
As these cases proceed, courts will grapple with how to apply longstanding First Amendment principles to rapidly evolving technology and business models in the digital age.