Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
Term: 2024
Important Dates
Argued: January 15, 2025
Decided: June 27, 2025
Outcome
affirmed
Vote
6-3
Majority
Clarence Thomas • Chief Justice John Roberts • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Dissenting
Elena Kagan • Sonia Sotomayor • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 27, 2025, during the court's October 2024-2025 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 15, 2025.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned people’s access to protected speech. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review to a law burdening adults' access to protected speech, instead of strict scrutiny as this Court and other circuits have consistently done."[1]
  • The outcome: The Court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a 6-3 ruling, holding that "H. B. 1181 triggers, and survives, review under intermediate scrutiny because it only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults."[2] Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.[2] Click here for more information about the ruling.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[3]

    • Petitioner: Free Speech Coalition, Inc., et al.
      • Legal counsel: Derek L. Shaffer (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP)
    • Respondent: Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas
      • Legal counsel: Aaron Lloyd Nielson (Office of the Texas Attorney General)

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez, a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and the Chicago-Kent College of Law:[4]

    “

    Texas enacted H.B. 1181, a law regulating commercial entities that publish or distribute material on internet websites, including social media platforms, where more than one-third of the content is sexual material harmful to minors. The law requires these entities to implement age verification methods to limit access to adults and display specific health warnings on their landing pages and advertisements. It defines sexual material harmful to minors using a modified version of the Miller test for obscenity.

    Shortly after the law was enacted but before it took effect, plaintiffs sued, claiming H.B. 1181 violates their First Amendment rights and, for some plaintiffs, conflicts with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The district court issued a pre-enforcement preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim and suffer irreparable harm. The court ruled that the age-verification requirement and health warnings fail strict scrutiny—that is, that it is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest using the least restrictive means to achieve that interest—and that Section 230 preempts H.B. 1181 for certain plaintiffs. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that rational basis review—i.e., rationally related to a legitimate government interest—was the proper standard of review and thus vacated the injunction against the age-verification requirement but affirmed as to the health warnings.[5]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:[6]


    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[1]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review to a law burdening adults' access to protected speech, instead of strict scrutiny as this Court and other circuits have consistently done.[5] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[7]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[8]

    Outcome

    In a 6-3 opinion, the court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding that "H. B. 1181 triggers, and survives, review under intermediate scrutiny because it only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults." [2] Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court.

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:[2]

    “

    Texas, like many States, prohibits the distribution of sexually explicit content to children. Tex. Penal Code Ann. §43.24(b) (West 2016). But, although that prohibition may be effective against brick-and-mortar stores, it has proved challenging to enforce against online content. In an effort to address this problem, Texas enacted H. B. 1181, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §129B.001 et seq. (West Cum. Supp. 2024), which requires certain commercial websites that publish sexually explicit content to verify the ages of their visitors. This requirement furthers the lawful end of preventing children from accessing sexually explicit content. But, it also burdens adult visitors of these websites, who all agree have a First Amendment right to access at least some of the content that the websites publish. We granted certiorari to decide whether these burdens likely render H. B. 1181 unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. We hold that they do not. The power to require age verification is within a State’s authority to prevent children from accessing sexually explicit content. H. B. 1181 is a constitutionally permissible exercise of that authority. [5]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

    In her dissent, Justice Kagan wrote:[2]

    “

    A law like H. B. 1181 might well pass the strict-scrutiny test, hard as it usually is to do so. As just noted, everyone agrees that shielding children from exposure to the sexually explicit speech H. B. 1181 targets is a compelling state interest. And Texas might be right in arguing that it has no less restrictive way to achieve that goal: It is difficult, as everyone also agrees, to limit minors’ access to things appearing on the internet. If H. B. 1181 is the best Texas can do—meaning, the means of achieving the State’s objective while restricting adults’ speech rights the least—then the statute should pass First Amendment review.

    But what if Texas could do better—what if Texas could achieve its interest without so interfering with adults’ constitutionally protected rights in viewing the speech H. B. 1181 covers? That is the ultimate question on which the Court and I disagree. The majority says that Texas may enforce its statute regardless, because only intermediate scrutiny applies and that test does not ask whether a State has adopted the least speech-restrictive means available. I disagree, based on conventional First Amendment rules and the way we have consistently applied them in this very context. The State should be foreclosed from restricting adults’ access to protected speech if that is not in fact necessary. [5]

    		”
    —Justice Elena Kagan

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2024-2025

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 7, 2024. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[9]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "23-1122 FREE SPEECH COALITION V. PAXTON QP", July 2, 2024
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Supreme Court of the United States, "Free Speech Coalition, Inc. et al., v. Paxton, Attorney General of Texas", June 27, 2025
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 23-1122," accessed November 22, 2024
    4. ↑ Oyez, "Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton," accessed November 22, 2024
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Free Speech Coalition, et al., Petitioners, v. Ken Paxton, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Texas", July 2, 2024
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued January 15, 2025
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued January 15, 2025
    9. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Free_Speech_Coalition,_Inc._v._Paxton&oldid=10423185"