Netchoice, LLC v. Paxton

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 29 Sep 2023

Throughout our Nation's history, the First Amendment's freedoms of speech and press have protected private entities' rights to choose whether and how to publish and disseminate speech generated by others. E.g., Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1930 (2019); Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 570, 575 (1995); Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241,258 (1974). Over two decades ago, this Court held there is "no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to" speech disseminated on "the Internet." Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997). Today, many Internet websites publish and disseminate curated collections of expression generated by themselves and others. Nevertheless, the State of Texas-much like Florida before it-has enacted a viewpoint-, content-, and speaker-based law (House Bill 20 or "HB20") targeting certain disfavored "social media" websites. HB20 Section 7 prohibits these websites from making editorial choices based on "viewpoint." And HB20 Section 2 imposes on these websites burdensome operational and disclosure requirements, chilling their editorial choices. This Court has already ensured once that Respondent cannot enforce this law against Petitioners' members. NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, 142 S. Ct. 1715, 1715-16 (2022). 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.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The US Supreme Court case involved NetChoice, LLC challenging a Texas law that imposed restrictions on social media platforms regarding content moderation. The law aimed to prevent large social media companies from censoring users based on their viewpoints and required transparency in how they manage user content. NetChoice argued that the law violated the First Amendment by compelling private companies to host speech against their will and infringing upon editorial discretion. The state of Texas defended the legislation as necessary for protecting free expression online, asserting that these platforms function like common carriers with obligations similar to those of telephone companies or utilities. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of NetChoice, holding that forcing private entities to carry certain speech violates constitutional protections afforded under the First Amendment.