WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court On Monday, Florida and Texas avoided a final ruling on whether Republican-backed laws seeking to regulate the content moderation practices of social media companies violate constitutional freedom protections.
The justices instead sent the two related cases back to lower courts for further deliberation on the legal issues raised under the Constitution’s First Amendment.
Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote for the court in the decision hearing both cases, said there is “a lot of work to be done” before the justices can determine whether the laws should be overturned.
The court noted that the Texas law was particularly sensitive, Kagan said, “and would not withstand First Amendment scrutiny.”
The justices were unanimous in the outcome, although only five other justices joined Kagan’s majority opinion.
These are sections of the law that allow platforms to ban certain problematic users or limit the accessibility of their posts.
Some of the justices expressed concerns about free speech related to the laws during oral argument in February, though there were also concerns that some of the provisions may be legal.
The laws may have some legal application to other platforms or services, including messaging apps, which could mean the court is reluctant to overturn them, some judges have suggested.
The two related cases draw attention to the growing power of social media platforms and the concerns raised by conservatives that they are disproportionately affected by moderate policies.
In another case justices, touching on related issues last week He rejected a Republican attempt to limit communications between the Biden administration and social media companies. Republicans have argued that the administration is forcing platforms to remove certain content they object to on issues such as Covid-19.
Trade groups NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, known as the CCIA, challenged the Texas and Florida laws, saying they violated their free speech rights by limiting companies’ ability to choose the content they want to publish on their platforms.
The First Amendment’s protection of free speech applies only to government activities, not corporations.
The laws were passed by Republican-led states in 2021 after efforts to overturn former President Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential election resulted in his supporters storming the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, banning Twitter, Facebook and others. .
In a move that somewhat undermined the rationale for the laws, Twitter was taken over by the billionaire the following year. Elon Muskhe has allied with the platform’s conservative critics and allowed various banned users to return.
Both laws place restrictions on content moderation and require companies to provide individual explanations to users when content is removed.
Florida law hinders companies from banning public figures from running for political office and limiting “shadow bans,” thereby making certain user content harder for other users to find, which the state considers forms of censorship.
Texas law prevents platforms from banning users based on the opinions they express. Each law requires companies to disclose their moderation policies.
In their legal arguments, states likened social media companies to the telecommunications industry, which transmits speech but has no editorial input. Such “common carriers” are heavily regulated by the government and do not cover free speech issues.
Emphasizing that things have become politicized, the administration of President Joe Biden gave a brief statement support legal challengesAnd Trump supported the laws.
In an earlier phase of the litigation, the Supreme Court blocked the Texas law from taking effect in May 2022. An appeals court similarly blocked the Florida law.
The cases did not resolve another divisive issue: the legal immunity Internet companies have long enjoyed for content posted by their users. The court last year bypassed decision on this issue.