{"id":2287421,"date":"2024-07-01T16:15:02","date_gmt":"2024-07-01T20:15:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/scotus-punts-on-legality-of-states-big-tech-regulation-laws\/"},"modified":"2024-07-01T16:19:04","modified_gmt":"2024-07-01T20:19:04","slug":"scotus-punts-on-legality-of-states-big-tech-regulation-laws","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/scotus-punts-on-legality-of-states-big-tech-regulation-laws\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS Punts On Legality Of States&#8217; Big Tech Regulation Laws"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">20<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fscotus-punts-on-legality-of-states-big-tech-regulation-laws%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2287421&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The\u200c U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declined to rule on the merits of\u200d state laws \u2062curbing Big\u2062 Tech\u2019s regulation of online speech, sending \u2064the case back to lower courts for further review. The case, known as Moody v. NetChoice, \u200bLLC, involved\u200b laws passed\u200b by Florida and Texas \u200din\u200d 2021 that aimed to regulate <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/ga-poll-watcher-it-expert-non-trump-supporter-affidavit-sudden-surge-of-20000-mail-in-votes-for-biden-in-early-hours-on-nov\/\" title=\"GA Poll Watcher, IT Expert, Non-Trump Supporter Affidavit: Sudden Surge of 20,000 Mail-In-Votes For Biden In Early Hours On Nov\">social media companies<\/a>&#8216; ability to \u200bcensor content they deemed unfavorable. District courts issued preliminary injunctions against the laws, leading\u200c to \u2063differing\u200b judgements from appellate courts. The Supreme Court stated that neither circuit court conducted a proper analysis of \u2062the facial First Amendment challenges to \u200dthe laws and emphasized the \u200cneed to determine a law&#8217;s full set of applications to assess \u200cits constitutionality. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas\u2064 concurred with the decision to remand the case but criticized the court for engaging in the same type of analysis it opposed from the lower courts.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declined to rule on the merits of state laws curbing Big Tech\u2019s regulation of online speech, instead sending the case back to lower courts for further review.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe parties have not briefed the critical issues here, and the record is underdeveloped,\u201d Associate Justice Elena Kagan <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/23pdf\/22-277_d18f.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">wrote<\/a> for the court. \u201cSo we vacate the decisions below and remand these cases. That will enable the lower courts to consider the scope of the laws\u2019 applications, and weigh the unconstitutional as against the constitutional ones.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined Kagan\u2019s opinion in full, while Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred in part and the judgement. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito filed separate opinions concurring in the judgement, the latter of which was joined by Thomas and Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch. <\/p>\n<p>Barrett also authored a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-epas-power-to-regulate-waters\/\" title=\"Supreme Court limits EPA&#039;s authority over water regulation.\">separate concurring opinion<\/a>. <\/p>\n<p>Known as <em>Moody v. NetChoice, LLC<\/em>, the case centered on laws passed by Florida and Texas in 2021 that sought to regulate social media companies\u2019 ability to censor content it deemed unfavorable. This prompted NetChoice LLC and the Computer &#038; Communications Industry Association \u2014 \u201ctrade associations whose members include Facebook and YouTube\u201d \u2014 to file \u201cfacial First Amendment challenges against the laws.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>District courts overseeing the respective challenges issued preliminary injunctions barring the statutes from taking effect. Appeals of the rulings produced differing judgements from two appellate courts.<\/p>\n<p>The 11th Circuit Court upheld the lower court\u2019s injunction against Florida\u2019s law, ruling that the Sunshine State\u2019s \u201crestrictions on content moderation trigger First Amendment scrutiny under this Court\u2019s cases protecting \u2018editorial discretion,\u2019 and concluding that the \u201ccontent-moderation provisions are unlikely to survive heightened scrutiny.\u201d Meanwhile, the 5th Circuit Court reversed the lower court\u2019s injunction on Texas\u2019 law, ruling that \u201cthe platforms\u2019 content moderation activities are \u2018not speech\u2019 at all, and so do not implicate the First Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In declining to rule on the merits of the laws, the Supreme Court asserted that neither circuit court \u201cconducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAs explained below, the question in such a case is whether a law\u2019s unconstitutional applications are substantial compared to its constitutional ones,\u201d Kagan wrote. \u201cTo make that judgment, a court must determine a law\u2019s full set of applications, evaluate which are constitutional and which are not, and compare the one to the other. Neither court performed that necessary inquiry.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In his concurrence, Thomas agreed with the high court\u2019s decision to remand the matter back to the lower courts, but disagreed with its choice to \u201copine on certain applications of those statutes.\u201d He also criticized the court for partaking \u201cin the exact type of analysis that it chastises the Courts of Appeals for performing.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cOut of the sea of \u2018variegated and complex\u2019 functions that platforms perform \u2026 the Court plucks out two (Facebook\u2019s News Feed and YouTube\u2019s homepage), and declares that they may be protected by the First Amendment,\u201d Thomas wrote. \u201cThe Court does so on a record that it itself describes as \u2018incomplete\u2019 and \u2018underdeveloped\u2019 \u2026 and by sidestepping several pressing factual and legal questions \u2026 As Justice Alito explains, the Court\u2019s approach is both unwarranted and mistaken.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Monday\u2019s decision comes days after the Supreme Court <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2024\/06\/26\/scotus-green-lights-feds-big-tech-censorship-scheme-ahead-of-2024-election\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">allowed<\/a> Big Tech\u2019s collusion with the federal government to censor speech the latter finds unfavorable. In a 6-3 decision, the court\u2019s majority ruled that <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/democratic-senator-claims-rant-during-barrett-confirmation-is-reason-court-upheld-obamacare\/\" title=\"Democratic Senator Claims Rant During Barrett Confirmation Is Reason Court Upheld Obamacare\">plaintiffs lacked standing<\/a> to bring the suit, tossing two <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-orders-biden-admin-to-reinstate-trump-immigration-policy\/\" title=\"Supreme Court Orders Biden Admin To Reinstate Trump Immigration Policy\">lower court injunctions<\/a> that prevented federal agencies from coordinating with social media companies and effectively permitting the government\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/tag\/censorship-industrial-complex-2\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">censorship-industrial complex<\/a> to remain intact during the 2024 election.<\/p>\n<p>Alito noted in his blistering dissent that the Supreme Court\u2019s failure to stop the Biden administration and Big Tech\u2019s \u201cdangerous\u201d censorship activities could produce alarming consequences for Americans\u2019 First Amendment rights.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court\u2019s failure to say so,\u201d Alito wrote. \u201cOfficials who read today\u2019s decision together with <em>Vullo<\/em> will get the message. If a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by. That is not a message this Court should send.\u201d<\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>      Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/exclusive-american-freedom-convoy-set-to-launch-on-march-1\/\" title=\"Exclusive: \u2018American Freedom Convoy\u2019 Set To Launch On March 1\">state content writer<\/a> for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided not to rule on the legality of state laws that limit Big Tech&#8217;s regulation of online speech. Instead, they sent the case back to lower courts for further review. The decision was made because the critical issues were not fully briefed and the record was not fully developed. The lower courts will now have the opportunity to consider the scope of the laws and determine which aspects are unconstitutional. Various justices joined in the opinion, with some filing separate concurrences. The case, known as Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, involved laws passed by Florida and Texas in 2021 that aimed to regulate social media companies&#8217; ability to censor content. The Supreme Court criticized the appellate courts for not properly analyzing the First Amendment challenges to these laws. The decision comes after the Supreme Court allowed Big Tech to collude with the federal government to censor speech, a move that some justices criticized as potentially harmful to First Amendment rights<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":539,"featured_media":2287422,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/11138743513_e43f79b9c0_k-e1705508533362.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[23092,5270,6994],"class_list":["post-2287421","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist","tag-big-tech","tag-regulation","tag-scotus"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/11138743513_e43f79b9c0_k-e1705508533362.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2287421","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/539"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2287421"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2287421\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2287422"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2287421"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2287421"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2287421"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}