NetChoice v. Paxton
In brief
The Court required a new, more careful review of whether Texas HB 20 violates platforms' First Amendment rights across all of its applications.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · July 1, 2024 · Opinion by Justice Kagan
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court reviewed a Texas law that restricted social media platforms from moderating user content and required detailed disclosures about their editorial practices.
- Who it affects
- The decision affects large social-media platforms that moderate users' posts and must disclose their editorial practices. It does not finally decide whether Texas may enforce HB 20's content-moderation and disclosure rules.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court vacated the lower court's decision, ruling that the Fifth Circuit failed to properly analyze whether the law facially violated the First Amendment rights of the platforms to curate speech.
The case concerns whether states can regulate how large internet platforms publish and distribute speech created by users.
Question presented
Do Texas HB 20’s provisions prohibiting social media platforms from censoring users’ content and imposing stringent disclosure requirements violate the First Amendment?
What the Court decided
Holding
The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded, because neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms. No. 22–277, 34 F. 4th 1196; No. 22–555, 49 F. 4th 439; vacated and remanded.
- Result
- Vacated
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Wrote an opinion
From the opinions
“The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded, because neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms.”
What's next
The Fifth Circuit must reconsider NetChoice's broad challenge using the Supreme Court's required First Amendment analysis. The parties will continue litigating whether particular parts of HB 20 can constitutionally apply to covered platforms.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Petition
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in NetChoice v. Paxton?
- The Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's decision and sent the case back. It said the lower court did not properly assess the broad First Amendment challenge.
- How does NetChoice v. Paxton affect social-media platforms?
- Platforms remain subject to continued litigation over Texas HB 20. The decision recognizes that their choices about distributing user speech raise First Amendment questions.
- What happens next in NetChoice v. Paxton?
- The Fifth Circuit must reconsider the facial challenge, meaning a challenge claiming the law is invalid in all or most applications. The parties will continue their case there.
- Is Texas HB 20 still the law after NetChoice v. Paxton?
- The Court did not finally decide whether HB 20 facially violates the First Amendment. It required lower courts to conduct a proper analysis first.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.