Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton
Term: 2023
Important Dates
Argued: February 26, 2024
Outcome
vacated and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Concurring
Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Amy Coney Barrett• Neil Gorsuch • Ketanji Brown Jackson

NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on July 1, 2024, during the court's October 2023-2024 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on February 26, 2024.

In a ruling for both NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, the Supreme Court unanimously vacated and remanded the judgments of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for Moody v. NetChoice, LLC. The Court held that neither the Fifth Circuit nor the Eleventh Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws that regulate large internet platforms. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the court.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned the First Amendment and web content. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "The question presented is whether the First Amendment prohibits viewpoint-, content-, or speaker-based laws restricting select websites from engaging in editorial choices about whether, and how, to publish and disseminate speech—or otherwise burdening those editorial choices through onerous operational and disclosure requirements."[2]
  • The outcome: In a ruling for both NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, the Supreme Court unanimously vacated and remanded the judgements of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for Moody v. NetChoice, LLC. The Court held that neither the Fifth Circuit nor the Eleventh Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws that regulate large internet platforms.[1]


    • 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.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:[3]

    Background

    In December 2021, Texas enacted House Bill 20 (HB 20), a state statute aimed at regulating large social media companies. The legally notable sections of the law include Sections 2 and 7. Section 2 outlines regulations, required processes, and the legal liability of social media companies operating in Texas should they fail to comply with the law. Section 7 prohibits the censorship of lawful speech. The section allows social media companies to censor "unlawful expression," defined as speech violating the U.S. Constitution, Texas Constitution, or any Texas state statute.

    NetChoice, LLC initiated a lawsuit against Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas. The suit alleges that Sections 2 and 7 of HB 20 violate the First Amendment, asserting that the law imposes a burden and unnecessary restrictions on social media companies.

    The district court agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction and ruling that the law limits the constitutionally-protected editorial discretion of social media platforms. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision, rejecting the claim that social media companies have a "freewheeling" right to censor users' speech. The court found that the law upholds and enforces the First Amendment, protecting users' speech against censorship.

    NetChoice, LLC appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court accepted their writ of certiorari, limiting the questions presented to:

    “
    1. Whether the laws’ content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment.
    2. Whether the laws’ individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment.[4]
    		 ”

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ The question presented is whether the First Amendment prohibits viewpoint-, content-, or speaker-based laws restricting select websites from engaging in editorial choices about whether, and how, to publish and disseminate speech—or otherwise burdening those editorial choices through onerous operational and disclosure requirements.

    [4]

    		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[5]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[6]

    Outcome

    In a ruling for both NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, the Supreme Court unanimously vacated and remanded the judgements of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for Moody v. NetChoice, LLC. The Court held that neither the Fifth Circuit nor the Eleventh Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws that regulate large internet platforms. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote:[1]

    “

    These are facial challenges, and that matters. To succeed on its First Amendment claim, NetChoice must show that the law at issue (whether from Texas or from Florida) ‘prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech relative to its plainly legitimate sweep.’ Hansen, 599 U. S., at 770. None of the parties below focused on that issue; nor did the Fifth or Eleventh Circuits. But that choice, unanimous as it has been, cannot now control. Even in the First Amendment context, facial challenges are disfavored, and neither parties nor courts can disregard the requisite inquiry into how a law works in all of its applications. So on remand, each court must evaluate the full scope of the law’s coverage. It must then decide which of the law’s applications are constitutionally permissible and which are not, and finally weigh the one against the other. The need for NetChoice to carry its burden on those issues is the price of its decision to challenge the laws as a whole.

    But there has been enough litigation already to know that the Fifth Circuit, if it stayed the course, would get wrong at least one significant input into the facial analysis. The parties treated Facebook’s News Feed and YouTube’s homepage as the heartland applications of the Texas law. At least on the current record, the editorial judgments influencing the content of those feeds are, contrary to the Fifth Circuit’s view, protected expressive activity. And Texas may not interfere with those judgments simply because it would prefer a different mix of messages. How that matters for the requisite facial analysis is for the Fifth Circuit to decide. But it should conduct that analysis in keeping with two First Amendment precepts. First, presenting a curated and ‘edited compilation of [third party] speech’ is itself protected speech. Hurley, 515 U. S., at 570. And second, a State ‘cannot advance some points of view by burdening the expression of others.’ PG&E, 475 U. S., at 20. To give government that power is to enable it to control the expression of ideas, promoting those it favors and suppressing those it does not. And that is what the First Amendment protects all of us from.

    We accordingly vacate the judgments of the Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits and remand the cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. [4]

    		”
    —Justice Elena Kagan[1]


    Concurring opinion

    Justice Barrett

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a concurring opinion.

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Barrett wrote:[1]

    “

    A facial challenge to either of these laws likely forces a court to bite off more than it can chew. An as-applied challenge, by contrast, would enable courts to home in on whether and how specific functions—like feeds versus direct messaging—are inherently expressive and answer platform- and function-specific questions that might bear on the First Amendment analysis. While the governing constitutional principles are straightforward, applying them in one fell swoop to the entire social-media universe is not.[4]

    		”
    —Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    Justice Jackson

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Jackson wrote:[1]

    “

    These cases present a complex clash between two novel state laws and the alleged First Amendment rights of several of the largest social media platforms. Some things are already clear. Not every potential action taken by a social media company will qualify as expression protected under the First Amendment. But not every hypothesized regulation of such a company’s operations will necessarily be able to withstand the force of the First Amendment’s protections either. Beyond those broadest of statements, it is difficult to say much more at this time. With these records and lower court decisions, we are not able to adequately evaluate whether the challenged state laws are facially valid.[4]

    		”
    —Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

    Justice Thomas

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]

    “

    The Court has recognized the problems that facial challenges pose, emphasizing that they are ‘disfavored,’ Washington State Grange, 552 U. S., at 450, and ‘best when infrequent,’ Sabri, 541 U. S., at 608. The Court reiterates those sentiments today. Ante, at 9, 30. But, while sidelining facial challenges provides some measure of relief, it ignores the real problem. Because federal courts are bound by Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, holding a statute unconstitutional as applied to nonparties is not simply disfavored—it exceeds the authority granted to federal courts. It is high time the Court reconsiders its facial challenge doctrine[4]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Justice Alito

    Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Alito wrote:[1]

    “

    The only binding holding in these decisions is that NetChoice has yet to prove that the Florida and Texas laws they challenged are facially unconstitutional. Because the majority opinion ventures far beyond the question we must decide, I concur only in the judgment.[4]

    		”
    —Justice Samuel Alito

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2023-2024

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 2, 2023. 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.[7]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 U.S. Supreme Court, "Moody v. NetChoice, LLC," accessed July 1, 2024
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "NETCHOICE, LLC D/B/A NETCHOICE; AND COMPUTER & COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION D/B/A CCIA v. KEN PAXTON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS," Cert. Granted September 29, 2023
    3. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton," accessed October 3, 2023
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued February 26, 2024
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued February 26, 2024
    7. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=NetChoice,_LLC_v._Paxton&oldid=9603422"