NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to block Mississippi from enforcing a law that would block minors from using nine popular social media sites without their parents’ consent—delivering a near-term blow to the tech industry group that had sought emergency intervention from the high court.
Justices on the high court did not elaborate on their reasons for rejecting the emergency appeal, filed by industry group NetChoice—a common practice when the Supreme Court decides on an emergency appeal—and did not provide a vote count.
NeChoice had asked the high court to put the law on hold while the case continued to play out in the lower courts on its merits.
Only Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh gave any indication of his thinking in a three-paragraph concurring opinion, writing that, while he believes the law in question is “likely unconstitutional,” and that NetChoice “demonstrated it would likely succeed on the merits” of the case, he agreed with his colleagues in ruling that the group failed to meet the high bar required for emergency relief.
SCOTUS RULES ON NEARLY $2 BILLION IN FROZEN USAID PAYMENTS
The case will continue to play out in the lower courts, and is expected to make its way back to the Supreme Court for full consideration at a later date.
At issue is Mississippi’s sweeping social media law, known as H.B. 1126. The law, passed by the state in 2024, blocks young people from accessing popular social media sites, including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, Pinterest, and Reddit without express parental consent.
It also requires social media sites to take additional steps to verify the ages of users before allowing them to create accounts, and to “develop and implement a strategy” to shield young people from exposure to harmful material.
Sites who fail to comply can be fined up to $10,000 per violation, and, in certain cases, could face criminal penalties.
NetChoice quickly sued to block the law, arguing that it violated free speech protections under the First Amendment.
U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden in June issued a preliminary injunction siding with NetChoice and temporarily blocking Mississippi from implementing its law.
While Judge Ozerden acknowledged the state may have a “compelling interest” in safeguarding minors online, he said Mississippi’s law involved “substantially more speech than is necessary for the state to accomplish its goals,” and ran afoul of the First Amendment.
In July, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals voted unanimously and without explanation to freeze the lower court injunction, allowing the law to take force—and prompting the emergency request for Supreme Court intervention.
LAWSUIT TRACKER: NEW RESISTANCE BATTLING TRUMP’S SECOND TERM THROUGH ONSLAUGHT OF LAWSUITS TAKING AIM AT EOS
In its emergency appeal to the high court, lawyers for NetChoice took aim at the lack of explanation from the lower court.
“Neither NetChoice nor this Court can know why the Fifth Circuit believed this law satisfies the First Amendment’s stringent demands or deviated from the seven other decisions enjoining similar laws,” lawyers said in their appeal to the high court, arguing they would face “immediate, irreparable” injury should the law be allowed to go into effect.
The Supreme Court’s emergency decision comes as a handful of other states have moved to implement similar age-verification legislation— including Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, and Utah.
NetChoice, for its part, has led similar lawsuits challenging social media legislation in other states such as Florida and Texas earlier this year.
Read the full article here
