The US Supreme Court has deferred rulings on the constitutionality of laws from Florida and Texas aimed at regulating social media companies' content moderation practices. The laws, challenged by industry groups including NetChoice and CCIA, sought to limit platforms like Meta Platforms, Google, and others from moderating content they deem objectionable. While the lower courts had mixed decisions-blocking Florida's law and upholding Texas'-the Supreme Court unanimously decided these decisions didn't fully address First Amendment concerns and sent them back for further review.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, questioned Texas' law, suggesting it sought to impose state preferences on social media content moderation, which could violate the First Amendment. Central to the debate is whether states can compel platforms to host content against their editorial discretion, which companies argue is necessary to manage spam, bullying, extremism, and hate speech. Critics argue these laws protect free speech by preventing censorship of conservative viewpoints, a claim disputed by the Biden administration, which opposes the laws for potentially violating First Amendment protections.

Why does it matter?

At stake are laws that would restrict platforms with over 50 million users from censoring based on viewpoint (Texas) and limit content exclusion for political candidates or journalistic enterprises (Florida). Additionally, these laws require platforms to explain content moderation decisions, a requirement some argue burdens free speech rights.

The Supreme Court's decision not to rule marks another chapter in the ongoing legal battle over digital free speech rights, following earlier decisions regarding officials' social media interactions and misinformation policies.