For the majority, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that lower courts addressing the matter wrongly focused on the state challengers’ contention that the laws applied only to “the curated feeds offered by the largest and most paradigmatic social-media platforms.”
During arguments, platforms such as Gmail and Etsy were raised as having the potential to be caught in the crossfire of the laws.
“Today, we vacate both decisions for reasons separate from the First Amendment merits, because neither Court of Appeals properly considered the facial nature of NetChoice’s challenge,” Kagan wrote.
The Texas and Florida laws stood to weaken companies’ ability to enforce their own rules and transform free speech online. No justices dissented, though Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote concurring opinions. The decision leaves intact lower court injunctions blocking the laws from going into effect.
The tech industry groups challenging the laws cheered the court’s decision and pledged to continue their advocacy as the cases go back to lower courts.
“We are encouraged that a majority of the Court has made clear that the government cannot tilt public debate in its favored direction. There is nothing more Orwellian than government attempting to dictate what speech should be carried, whether it is a newspaper or a social media site,” Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) President Matt Schruers said in a statement.
Chris Marchese, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said the ruling is a “victory of First Amendment rights online.”
“As our cases head back to the lower courts for consideration, the Supreme Court agreed with all our First Amendment arguments. Free speech is a cornerstone of our republic,” Marchese said in a statement.
Read more in a full report at TheHill.com.
