The United States Supreme Court recently declined a request from NetChoice, a technology industry group, to temporarily block enforcement of a Mississippi law that restricts young people’s access to social media platforms. This decision permits the state to continue enforcing House Bill 1126 against major social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, X, Reddit, and YouTube, while ongoing litigation plays out in the lower courts. The law mandates parental consent for minors to create social media accounts and requires platforms to verify user ages and protect young users from harmful content. Failure to comply could result in significant civil and criminal penalties for the platforms.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred with the Court’s decision but noted that the Mississippi law could potentially be unconstitutional. Despite this, the Supreme Court issued a brief order allowing the law to stand while the legal battle continues. Earlier, U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden had placed a temporary hold on the law, suggesting that while the state has a compelling interest in protecting minors’ wellbeing online, the legislation may infringe upon First Amendment rights. Judge Ozerden also pointed out that many tools already exist for parents to regulate their children’s internet access, suggesting a less restrictive alternative could achieve the state’s goals.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily reversed Judge Ozerden’s decision in July, prompting NetChoice to seek relief from the Supreme Court. The tech group argued that the law stifles access to protected expression and is inconsistent with judicial consensus on the First Amendment implications of such laws. Meanwhile, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch contended that the law has not led to significant issues, as no complaints have arisen regarding access or censorship related to the statute.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene at this stage allows Mississippi to maintain its restrictions until the case is resolved in lower courts. Justice Kavanaugh’s separate opinion recognized NetChoice’s likelihood of success on the merits, suggesting the law might indeed violate First Amendment protections. However, he reasoned that NetChoice had not convincingly demonstrated the potential harm to its members outweighs Mississippi’s interests, influencing the Court’s decision to allow the law to remain in effect for now.
For further details on the Supreme Court’s decision, you can visit SCOTUSblog.