Supreme Court sends social media cases back to lower courts to consider First Amendment issues

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

The Supreme Court has ruled on cases challenging Texas and Florida laws that regulate social media platforms’ content moderation practices.

The case raised the question of whether Facebook, X/Twitter, YouTube and other platforms were neutral gatekeepers of third-party content, or whether their content moderation practices constituted the type of expressive activity protected by the First Amendment .

The high court justices sent the cases back to lower courts to further analyze the First Amendment implications.

Both laws were rooted in the idea that big platforms were stifling conservative viewpoints.

The Florida law prohibits platforms from banning or suspending the accounts of candidates for public office. It also prohibits restricting accounts engaged in a “journalistic enterprise.” The Texas law prohibits social media platforms from removing content based on a point of view. Both laws allow users to sue the platforms for damages. They also require the platforms to disclose their content moderation decisions. Both laws will be put on hold while lower courts review their constitutionality.

NetChoice, an industry group representing the major platforms, challenged the laws.

“Today, we overturn both decisions on grounds separate from the merits of the First Amendment, because neither court of appeals properly considered the apparent nature of NetChoice’s challenge,” the court wrote. Justice Elena Kagan. “The courts have mainly looked at the points on which the parties had focused. »

The court overturned two appeals court decisions.

Kagan wrote that “the question in such a case is whether the unconstitutional applications of a statute are substantial in comparison to its constitutional applications. In making this judgment, a court must determine the full range of applications of a statute, assess which are constitutional and which are not, and compare these with
the other. Neither court carried out the necessary investigation.

Kagan noted that “the Court has held repeatedly, in many contexts, that it is not for the government to decide what constitutes the proper balance between private expression and what it considers biased, but to leave that judgment to speakers and their audiences. This principle applies to social media platforms as it does to others.”

She added: “In short, there is much work to be done in both cases, given the apparent nature of NetChoice’s challenges. But that work must be done in accordance with the First Amendment, which does not stop when social media is involved.”

There were no dissents among the justices, but others expressed concurring opinions.

Chris Marchese, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, called the decision “a victory for First Amendment rights online.”

“While our cases are sent back to lower courts for review, the Supreme Court has accepted all of our First Amendment arguments. Free speech is the cornerstone of our republic,” Marchese said in a statement.