The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Monday about the constitutionality of new Florida and Texas laws that limit content moderation on social media platforms. The Court unanimously vacated and returned both laws to the lower courts.
In ruling on the legality of the laws seeking to restrain social media companies from suppressing content the platforms deem objectionable, the Supreme Court sent the cases back to be reheard.
The Florida law will go back to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, while the Texas law heads back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In this ruling, the Court did not say whether the Florida and Texas laws violate the First Amendment. It simply stated that the states did not apply the correct principles when doing their analyses for their laws.
Therefore, the Supreme Court is forcing Florida and Texas redo their analyses in order to be consistent with the principles the Court presented on Monday. This means that the case is not over. The laws have not been struck down, but will go for a second round in the lower courts.
“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,” the Supreme Court’s ruling read.
The Court added that sending the cases back to the lower courts will allow them “to consider the scope of the laws’ applications, and weigh the unconstitutional as against the constitutional ones.”
The opinion was delivered by Justice Elena Kagan. Justices John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined in full, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joining in parts.
Justice Clarence Thomas, meanwhile, filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, which means he agrees with the outcome but rejects the legal reasoning that got there.
The same goes for Justice Samuel Alito, who filed an an opinion concurring in the judgment that both Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch joined.
The case is Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, No. 22–277, in the Supreme Court of the United States, andTrump v. United States, No. 23-939 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
You can follow Alana Mastrangelo on Facebook and X at @ARmastrangelo, and on Instagram.
