The Supreme Court on Monday overturned lower court rulings regarding two state laws that sought to prevent social media companies from banning users based on their political views, postponing the main First Amendment challenge.
For the majority, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that lower courts addressing the issue wrongly focused on the state’s challengers’ claim that the laws applied only to “select feeds offered by the largest and most paradigmatic social media platforms.” During discussions, platforms like Gmail and Etsy were raised as having the potential to be caught in the legal crossfire.
“Today, we vacate both decisions for reasons other than the First Amendment merits, because no Court of Appeals adequately considered the facial nature of NetChoice’s challenge,” Kagan wrote.
Laws in Texas and Florida have weakened companies’ ability to enforce their own rules and transform free speech online. No justices dissented, although Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote concurring opinions. The decision leaves intact the injunctions of lower courts that prevent the laws from coming into force.
Tech industry groups challenging the laws applauded the court’s decision and pledged to continue their defense as the cases return to lower courts.
“We are encouraged that the Court majority has made clear that the government cannot tilt the public debate in its favorable direction. There is nothing more Orwellian than the government trying to dictate what speech should be broadcast, whether it is a newspaper or a social media site,” said Matt Schruers, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), in a statement.
Chris Marchese, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said the ruling is a “victory for First Amendment rights online.”
“As our cases returned to the lower courts for consideration, the Supreme Court agreed with all of our First Amendment arguments. Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of our republic. As we prepare to celebrate the 248th anniversary of American independence this week, we are pleased to see the Supreme Court recognize the Constitution’s unparalleled protections for free speech, including the world’s most important communications tool, the Internet,” said Marchese in a statement.
The two laws were passed in 2021 amid Republican backlash over how social media companies enforced their policies, leading to bans and suspensions of prominent conservative figures for posting content that violated the platforms’ policies.
Although the laws are very similar, they are not identical. The Florida law specifically singles out political candidates as entities that cannot be deplatformed, while in Texas, the law prevents platforms from removing content based on users’ “viewpoints.”
NetChoice and the CCIA challenged the laws as a violation of the First Amendment rights of private social media companies, arguing that governments cannot dictate how they evaluate what speech to host.
The need for Supreme Court review became more urgent when federal appeals courts reached opposing conclusions on the matter. A panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit sided with the tech groups, maintaining a block on key provisions of the Florida law, while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit sided with Texas , saying that the First Amendment does not provide corporations with a “countless right to muzzle speech.”
The Biden administration also intervened, signaling support for the technology groups and urging the high court to overturn the 5th Circuit ruling.
Updated at 11:07 a.m. EDT
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
