The US Supreme Court has vacated and remanded lower court rulings on the constitutionality of statutes enacted by Florida and Texas that regulate the content moderation practices of large social media platforms. These laws were passed in 2021 amidst concerns that conservative voices were being stifled on major social media sites, partly triggered by Twitter’s (now X) permanent suspension of Donald Trump’s account following the January 6 Capitol riot.
Trade associations representing social media giants, including Facebook and YouTube, challenged these laws. They argued that the statutes infringed upon the First Amendment right to free speech. District courts initially issued preliminary injunctions against the laws, but subsequent appeals led to a circuit split. The Eleventh Circuit supported the Florida injunction, viewing content moderation as protected under First Amendment editorial discretion, while the Fifth Circuit overturned the Texas injunction, ruling that moderation activities do not constitute “speech” under the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court, in its decision, declined to address the First Amendment merits, instead emphasizing that both lower courts misunderstood the nature of the challenges presented. The crux of the ruling in Moody v. NetChoice hinges on the distinction between facial and as-applied challenges under US constitutional law. The Court pointed out that both cases involved facial challenges, where a law’s constitutionality in all circumstances is contested. However, the lower courts evaluated them as as-applied challenges, which focus on specific applications of the law.
As the Supreme Court noted, “In a facial challenge, that could well matter, even when the challenge is brought under the First Amendment. The question in such a case is whether a law’s unconstitutional applications are substantial compared to its constitutional ones.” The Court’s unanimous opinion emphasized the need to evaluate a law’s full set of applications to assess its overall constitutionality.
Commenting on the ruling, NetChoice lauded the opinion as “a victory for First Amendment rights online.”
For more details on the Supreme Court’s decision and its implications, visit the JURIST news page.