WASHINGTON β The Supreme Court on Monday kept a hold on efforts in Texas and Florida to limit how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate content posted by their users.
The justices returned the cases to lower courts in challenges from trade associations for the companies.
While the details vary, both laws aimed to address conservative complaints that the social media companies were liberal-leaning and censored users based on their viewpoints, especially on the political right. The cases are among several this term in which the justices are wrestling with standards for free speech in the digital age.
The Florida and Texas laws were signed by Republican governors in the months following decisions by Facebook and Twitter, now X, to cut then-President Donald Trump off over his posts related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.
Trade associations representing the companies sued in federal court, claiming that the laws violated the platformsβ speech rights. One federal appeals court struck down Floridaβs statute, while another upheld the Texas law. But both were on hold pending the outcome at the Supreme Court.
In a statement when he signed the Florida measure into law, Gov. Ron DeSantis said it would be βprotection against the Silicon Valley elites.β
When Gov. Greg Abbott signed the Texas law, he said it was needed to protect free speech in what he termed the new public square. Social media platforms βare a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely β but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas," Abbott said. βThat is wrong, and we will not allow it in Texas.β
But much has changed since then. Elon Musk purchased Twitter and, besides changing its name, eliminated teams focused on content moderation, welcomed back many users previously banned for hate speech and used the site to spread conspiracy theories.
President Joe Biden's administration sided with the challengers, though it cautioned the court to seek a narrow ruling that maintained governmentsβ ability to impose regulations to ensure competition, preserve data privacy and protect consumer interests. Lawyers for Trump filed a brief in the Florida case that had urged the Supreme Court to uphold the state law.
Law enforcement officers stand behind barricades outside the Supreme Court on Thursday, June 27, 2024, in Washington.Β
The cases are among several the justices have grappled with over the past year involving social media platforms, including one decided last week in which the court threw out a lawsuit from Louisiana, Missouri and other parties accusing federal officials of pressuring social media companies to silence conservative points of view.
During arguments in February, the justices seemed inclined to prevent the laws from taking effect. Several justices suggested then that they viewed the platforms as akin to newspapers that have broad free-speech protections, rather than like telephone companies, known as common carriers, that are susceptible to broader regulation.
But two justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, appeared more ready to embrace the states' arguments. Thomas raised the idea that the companies are seeking constitutional protection for βcensoring other speech.β Alito also equated the platforms' content moderation to censorship.
The justices also worried about too broad a ruling that might affect businesses that are not the primary targets of the laws, including e-commerce sites like Uber and Etsy and email and messaging services.
Notable Supreme Court cases of 2024
Supreme Court makes it harder to charge Capitol riot defendants with obstruction, charge Trump faces
Roughly 170 Capitol insurrection defendants have been convicted of obstructing or conspiring to obstruct the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress, including the leaders of two far-right extremist groups.Β
The current high court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has been increasingly skeptical of the powers of federal agencies.Β
The case is the most significant to come before the high court in decades on the issue and comes as a rising number of people in the U.S. are without a permanent place to live.
The high court had put the settlement on hold last summer, in response to objections from the Biden administration.
The ruling came after a day an opinion was briefly posted on the court's website accidently and quickly taken down, but not before it was obtained by Bloomberg News.
The justices ruled that people accused of fraud by the SEC, which regulates securities markets, have the right to a jury trial in federal court.
The Supreme Court is putting the Environmental Protection Agencyβs air pollution-fighting βgood neighborβ plan on hold while legal challenges continue, the conservative-led courtβs latest blow to federal regulations.
The justices ruled in favor of a 1994 ban on firearms for people under restraining orders to stay away from their spouses or partners.
The high court found 6-3 that the Trump administration did not follow federal law when it reversed course and banned bump stocks.
The Supreme Court has preserved access to a medication that was used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. last year.Β
The unanimous opinion reverses a lower court decision tossing out the gun rights groupβs lawsuit against ex-New York State Department of Financial Services Ssuperintendent Maria Vullo.
The Supreme Court has preserved a Republican-held South Carolina congressional district, rejecting a lower-court ruling the district discriminated against Black voters.
The Supreme Court has rejected a conservative-led attack that could've undermined the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.Β
The Supreme Court on Monday restored Donald Trump to 2024 presidential primary ballots, rejecting state attempts to hold the Republican former president accountable for the Capitol riot.
