Supreme Court Cases on Florida and Texas Social Media Laws: What You Need to Know

The Supreme Court to Hear Cases on Laws Regulating Social Media Platforms’ Content Moderation

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear two cases related to controversial laws in Texas and Florida that aim to regulate social media platforms’ content moderation decisions.

These laws seek to prevent social media companies from banning users based on their political views, even in cases where users violate platform policies. This essentially limits the companies’ ability to enforce their own rules.

The Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of the content moderation restrictions within these laws, as well as the “individualized-explanation requirements” they impose.

The outcome of these cases could have significant implications for online speech, particularly because two lower courts, the 5th Circuit and 11th Circuit appeals courts, have had conflicting opinions on whether to block or uphold similar laws in these two states.

The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice, two tech industry groups, challenged these laws in court, arguing that they violate the First Amendment rights of private companies to decide what speech they host.

The tech industry groups are pleased by the Supreme Court’s decision to hear these cases.

“This order is encouraging. It is high time that the Supreme Court resolves whether governments can force websites to publish dangerous content. Telling private websites they must give equal treatment to extremist hate isn’t just unwise, it is unconstitutional, and we look forward to demonstrating that to the Court,” said CCIA President Matt Schruers.

“Online services have a well-established First Amendment right to host, curate, and share content as they see fit. The internet is a vital platform for free expression, and it must remain free from government censorship. We are confident the Court will agree,” stated NetChoice litigation director Chris Marchese.

In Florida, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a block on significant provisions of the law, siding with the tech industry groups. The panel agreed that the “basic principles of freedom of speech and the press” apply to private corporations, regardless of technological advancements.

In contrast, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached the opposite conclusion in the Texas case. Judge Andrew Stephen Oldham, appointed by former President Trump, wrote in the panel’s opinion that corporations do not have an “unenumerated right to muzzle speech” protected by the First Amendment.

Florida’s Attorney General Ashley Moody petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case, arguing that the 11th Circuit’s decision conflicts with the 5th Circuit’s ruling in the Texas case. The trade associations representing the tech industry also appealed to the Supreme Court.

It comes as no surprise that at least four of the nine justices agreed to take up these cases, as several justices had already indicated their interest in the matter. Last May, the Supreme Court took emergency action and temporarily halted the enforcement of the Texas law until the 5th Circuit could further consider the case. Justice Samuel Alito, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, expressed the belief that the case raises important legal questions that require Supreme Court review. Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s liberals, did not join their opinion but indicated agreement with the three conservative justices’ votes.

The justices also requested the Biden administration’s input on the case, further demonstrating their interest in taking it up.

In August, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar urged the Supreme Court to overturn the 5th Circuit’s decision to uphold the Texas law. Prelogar argued that considering both laws together would provide the Court with the best opportunity to address the relevant issues.

Zach Schonfeld contributed.

— Updated at 11:20 a.m.