close
close

Supreme Court sends social media rules back to lower courts

Posted on by darion

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday (July 1) sent two state laws aimed at regulating social media platforms back to lower courts, saying the First Amendment protects the companies from government interference with their content feeds. But the court did not rule out the possibility that some elements of the laws could be upheld.

The lawsuits — Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton — stem from Texas and Florida laws that sought to force social media platforms to share a wide range of user opinions. The laws were passed after several platforms banned former President Donald Trump for violating policies against promoting violence in the wake of the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her summation that “work must be performed in accordance with the First
The fix that doesn’t go on vacation when social media is involved.”

All judges agreed with the decision, although there were many diverging opinions. Justice Kagan authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with parts of the majority opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote concurring opinions, and both Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined in Alito’s opinion.

Why did social media platforms file a free speech lawsuit?

The main argument in these cases was that the rules only apply to moderated feeds of major social media platforms, such as Facebook’s News Feed, meaning the platforms were challenging the rules because they limited their control over content moderation.

Technology advocacy groups NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association filed lawsuits arguing that the rules violate the platforms’ constitutional right to make editorial decisions about what content is allowed or banned.

However, Justice Kagan wrote: “(The question) in a case like this is whether the unconstitutional applications of a statute are material in comparison to its constitutional applications. To make such a judgment, the court must determine the full set of applications of the law, assess which are constitutional and which are not, and compare one with the other. No court has conducted the necessary investigation.”

The justices overturned earlier rulings by the 11th and 5th Circuit Courts of Appeals and provided guidance for lower courts on how to assess the constitutionality of the laws. The legislation comes after complaints from conservative politicians in both states who accused major tech companies of being biased against conservative perspectives. Different rulings by appellate courts in each state on the legality of the statutes led to the Supreme Court receiving the final decision on social media regulation.

“Today we reverse both decisions for reasons beyond the merits of the First Amendment,” Justice Elena Kagan said in the majority opinion.

The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University said the ruling was “careful and thoughtful.” George Washington University law professor Dr. Mary Anne Franks added that this is “refreshingly clear.”

Featured Image: Canva