SCOTUS Agrees to Hear NetChoice, CCIA Challenges to Fla., Texas Social Media Laws

NetChoice and CCIA argue that the Florida and Texas statutes are unconstitutional under the First Amendment, plus that they violate the commerce clause, the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment, and are preempted by Section 230.

The cert petitions granted are limited to the first two questions raised in U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar’s Aug. 14 amicus brief, said the SCOTUS order list. In her brief, Prelogar asked whether the laws’ content-moderation restrictions and “individualized-explanation requirements” comply with the First Amendment.

Courts for more than 200 years “have upheld the First Amendment to protect citizens and private businesses from government attempts to compel speech,” CCIA President Matt Schruers said. “This is a critical principle of democracy, and we are glad the Supreme Court recognized that and agreed to hear the case,” he said.

The SCOTUS order “is encouraging,” said Schruers. It’s “high time” that the Supreme Court “resolves whether governments can force websites to publish dangerous content,” he said. Telling private websites “they must give equal treatment to extremist hate isn’t just unwise, it is unconstitutional, and we look forward to demonstrating that to the Court,” he said.

NetChoice is pleased that SCOTUS “agreed to hear our landmark cases,” Litigation Director Chris Marchese said. Online services “have a well-established First Amendment right to host, curate and share content as they see fit,” he said. The internet “is a vital platform for free expression, and it must remain free from government censorship,” said Marchese. “We are confident the Court will agree.”

The office of Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) is pleased that SCOTUS "granted our request" to hear the case, "and we look forward to defending our social media law that protects Floridians," emailed a spokesperson Friday. The office of Texas AG Ken Paxton (R) didn’t comment.