The Supreme Court to Rule on the Constitutionality of State Laws Restricting Social Media Platforms

20

On Friday, the Supreme Court consented to hear cases that will determine the constitutional legitimacy of state legislation aimed at regulating social media giants such as Facebook, TikTok, and others. These laws have been enacted predominantly by Republican-controlled legislatures and approved by Republican governors in states like Florida and Texas. Although the laws differ in specifics, their overarching objective is to stop these platforms from implementing censorship based on users’ political or ideological perspectives.

This decision to hear the cases was announced just three days ahead of the Supreme Court’s new session and adds another layer to the court’s ongoing deliberation on how pre-existing laws, created well before the digital era, are applicable to the contemporary online landscape.

In the past, the justices had taken up the matter of whether public office holders have the right to prevent their critics from engaging in discussions on their social media profiles. This was an issue that came under scrutiny in a case involving then-President Donald Trump, which was eventually dismissed following the conclusion of his term in January 2021.

In a related development, the Supreme Court might also evaluate a decision from a lower court that restricts the executive branch’s ability to communicate with social media companies about contentious online posts.

The upcoming case emerges in the wake of contradictory judgments from two appellate courts; one supported the Texas law, while the other nullified Florida’s legislation. In a closely divided 5-4 vote, the court agreed to temporarily suspend the Texas law pending ongoing legal proceedings.

This decision saw an unconventional voting alignment, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett siding with an emergency request from two tech industry associations who had filed a legal challenge against the law.

Conversely, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch were in favor of allowing the Texas law to stay in effect. Justice Alito, in his dissent, noted that social media platforms have fundamentally altered the means of human communication and information dissemination.

Supporters of these laws, mainly Republican politicians from several states with similar legal frameworks, argue that social media platforms generally espouse a liberal bias and are inclined to suppress non-liberal viewpoints, particularly those emanating from conservative circles.

On the other hand, the technology industry has cautioned that such laws could hinder platforms in their efforts to eliminate hate speech and extremist content.

Intriguingly, the court refrained from immediate action on the matter, despite mutual agreement from both parties that the Supreme Court’s involvement was essential.

Last year, the justices reviewed, but did not act upon, a petition to relax the legal protections that technology companies currently enjoy concerning user-generated content.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Supreme Court and Social Media Regulation

More about Supreme Court and Social Media Regulation

• Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Social Media Case
• Florida and Texas Social Media Laws
• Previous Case Involving Then-President Donald Trump
• Appellate Court Rulings on Social Media Laws
• The Constitution and Digital Age Legislation