Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. ___ (2024)
In 2021, Florida and Texas enacted statutes regulating large social-media companies and other internet platforms. The laws curtailed the platforms' ability to engage in content moderation and required them to provide reasons to a user if they removed or altered her posts. NetChoice LLC, a trade association whose members include Facebook and YouTube, brought First Amendment challenges against the two laws. District courts in both states entered preliminary injunctions.
The Eleventh Circuit upheld the injunction of Florida’s law, holding that the state's restrictions on content moderation trigger First Amendment scrutiny. The court concluded that the content-moderation provisions are unlikely to survive heightened scrutiny. The Fifth Circuit, however, disagreed and reversed the preliminary injunction of the Texas law. The court held that the platforms’ content-moderation activities are “not speech” at all, and so do not implicate the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the judgments and remanded the cases, stating that neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms. The Court held that the laws interfere with protected speech, as they prevent the platforms from compiling the third-party speech they want in the way they want, thus producing their own distinctive compilations of expression. The Court also held that Texas's asserted interest in correcting the mix of viewpoints that major platforms present is not valid under the First Amendment.
The First Amendment offers protection when an entity engaging in expressive activity, including compiling and curating others’ speech, is directed to accommodate messages it would prefer to exclude. Also, a state may not interfere with private actors’ speech to advance its own vision of ideological balance.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
MOODY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA, et al. v. NETCHOICE, LLC, dba NETCHOICE, et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit
No. 22–277. Argued February 26, 2024—Decided July 1, 2024*[1]
In 2021, Florida and Texas enacted statutes regulating large social-media companies and other internet platforms. The States’ laws differ in the entities they cover and the activities they limit. But both curtail the platforms’ capacity to engage in content moderation—to filter, prioritize, and label the varied third-party messages, videos, and other content their users wish to post. Both laws also include individualized-explanation provisions, requiring a platform to give reasons to a user if it removes or alters her posts.
NetChoice LLC and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (collectively, NetChoice)—trade associations whose members include Facebook and YouTube—brought facial First Amendment challenges against the two laws. District courts in both States entered preliminary injunctions.
The Eleventh Circuit upheld the injunction of Florida’s law, as to all provisions relevant here. The court held that the State’s restrictions on content moderation trigger First Amendment scrutiny under this Court’s cases protecting “editorial discretion.” 34 F. 4th 1196, 1209, 1216. The court then concluded that the content-moderation provisions are unlikely to survive heightened scrutiny. Id., at 1227–1228. Similarly, the Eleventh Circuit thought the statute’s individualized-explanation requirements likely to fall. Relying on Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, the court held that the obligation to explain “millions of [decisions] per day” is “unduly burdensome and likely to chill platforms’ protected speech.” 34 F. 4th, at 1230.
The Fifth Circuit disagreed across the board, and so reversed the preliminary injunction of the Texas law. In that court’s view, the platforms’ content-moderation activities are “not speech” at all, and so do not implicate the First Amendment. 49 F. 4th 439, 466, 494. But even if those activities were expressive, the court determined the State could regulate them to advance its interest in “protecting a diversity of ideas.” Id., at 482. The court further held that the statute’s individualized-explanation provisions would likely survive, even assuming the platforms were engaged in speech. It found no undue burden under Zauderer because the platforms needed only to “scale up” a “complaint-and-appeal process” they already used. 49 F. 4th, at 487.
Held: The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded, because neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms. Pp. 9–31.
(a) NetChoice’s decision to litigate these cases as facial challenges comes at a cost. The Court has made facial challenges hard to win. In the First Amendment context, a plaintiff must show that “a substantial number of [the law’s] applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 594 U.S. 595, 615.
So far in these cases, no one has paid much attention to that issue. Analysis and arguments below focused mainly on how the laws applied to the content-moderation practices that giant social-media platforms use on their best-known services to filter, alter, or label their users’ posts, i.e., on how the laws applied to the likes of Facebook’s News Feed and YouTube’s homepage. They did not address the full range of activities the laws cover, and measure the constitutional against the unconstitutional applications.
The proper analysis begins with an assessment of the state laws’ scope. The laws appear to apply beyond Facebook’s News Feed and its ilk. But it’s not clear to what extent, if at all, they affect social-media giants’ other services, like direct messaging, or what they have to say about other platforms and functions. And before a court can do anything else with these facial challenges, it must “determine what [the law] covers.” United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. 762, 770.
The next order of business is to decide which of the laws’ applications violate the First Amendment, and to measure them against the rest. For the content-moderation provisions, that means asking, as to every covered platform or function, whether there is an intrusion on protected editorial discretion. And for the individualized-explanation provisions, it means asking, again as to each thing covered, whether the required disclosures unduly burden expression. See Zauderer, 471 U. S., at 651.
Because this is “a court of review, not of first view,” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7, this Court cannot undertake the needed inquiries. And because neither the Eleventh nor the Fifth Circuit performed the facial analysis in the way described above, their decisions must be vacated and the cases remanded. Pp. 9–12.
(b) It is necessary to say more about how the First Amendment relates to the laws’ content-moderation provisions, to ensure that the facial analysis proceeds on the right path in the courts below. That need is especially stark for the Fifth Circuit, whose decision rested on a serious misunderstanding of First Amendment precedent and principle. Pp. 12–29.
(1) The Court has repeatedly held that ordering a party to provide a forum for someone else’s views implicates the First Amendment if, though only if, the regulated party is engaged in its own expressive activity, which the mandated access would alter or disrupt. First, in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, the Court held that a Florida law requiring a newspaper to give a political candidate a right to reply to critical coverage interfered with the newspaper’s “exercise of editorial control and judgment.” Id., at 243, 258. Florida could not, the Court explained, override the newspaper’s decisions about the “content of the paper” and “[t]he choice of material to go into” it, because that would substitute “governmental regulation” for the “crucial process” of editorial choice. Id., at 258. The next case, Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 475 U.S. 1, involved California’s attempt to force a private utility to include material from a certain consumer-advocacy group in its regular newsletter to consumers. The Court held that an interest in “offer[ing] the public a greater variety of views” could not justify compelling the utility “to carry speech with which it disagreed” and thus to “alter its own message.” Id., at 11, n. 7, 12, 16. Then in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, the Court considered federal “must-carry” rules, which required cable operators to allocate certain channels to local broadcast stations. The Court had no doubt the First Amendment was implicated, because the rules “interfere[d]” with the cable operators’ “editorial discretion over which stations or programs to include in [their] repertoire.” Id., at 636, 643–644. The capstone of this line of precedents, Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557, held that the First Amendment prevented Massachusetts from compelling parade organizers to admit as a participant a gay and lesbian group seeking to convey a message of “pride.” Id., at 561. It held that ordering the group’s admittance would “alter the expressive content of the[ ] parade,” and that the decision to exclude the group’s message was the organizers’ alone. Id., at 572–574.
From that slew of individual cases, three general points emerge. First, the First Amendment offers protection when an entity engaged in compiling and curating others’ speech into an expressive product of its own is directed to accommodate messages it would prefer to exclude. Second, none of that changes just because a compiler includes most items and excludes just a few. It “is enough” for the compiler to exclude the handful of messages it most “disfavor[s].” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574. Third, the government cannot get its way just by asserting an interest in better balancing the marketplace of ideas. In case after case, the Court has barred the government from forcing a private speaker to present views it wished to spurn in order to rejigger the expressive realm. Pp. 13–19.
(2) “[W]hatever the challenges of applying the Constitution to ever-advancing technology, the basic principles” of the First Amendment “do not vary.” Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U.S. 786, 790. And the principles elaborated in the above-summarized decisions establish that Texas is not likely to succeed in enforcing its law against the platforms’ application of their content-moderation policies to their main feeds.
Facebook’s News Feed and YouTube’s homepage present users with a continually updating, personalized stream of other users’ posts. The key to the scheme is prioritization of content, achieved through algorithms. The selection and ranking is most often based on a user’s expressed interests and past activities, but it may also be based on other factors, including the platform’s preferences. Facebook’s Community Standards and YouTube’s Community Guidelines detail the messages and videos that the platforms disfavor. The platforms write algorithms to implement those standards—for example, to prefer content deemed particularly trustworthy or to suppress content viewed as deceptive. Beyond ranking content, platforms may add labels, to give users additional context. And they also remove posts entirely that contain prohibited subjects or messages, such as pornography, hate speech, and misinformation on certain topics. The platforms thus unabashedly control the content that will appear to users.
Texas’s law, though, limits their power to do so. Its central provision prohibits covered platforms from “censor[ing]” a “user’s expression” based on the “viewpoint” it contains. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §143A.002(a)(2). The platforms thus cannot do any of the things they typically do (on their main feeds) to posts they disapprove—cannot demote, label, or remove them—whenever the action is based on the post’s viewpoint. That limitation profoundly alters the platforms’ choices about the views they convey.
The Court has repeatedly held that type of regulation to interfere with protected speech. Like the editors, cable operators, and parade organizers this Court has previously considered, the major social-media platforms curate their feeds by combining “multifarious voices” to create a distinctive expressive offering. Hurley, 515 U. S., at 569. Their choices about which messages are appropriate give the feed a particular expressive quality and “constitute the exercise” of protected “editorial control.” Tornillo, 418 U. S., at 258. And the Texas law targets those expressive choices by forcing the platforms to present and promote content on their feeds that they regard as objectionable.
That those platforms happily convey the lion’s share of posts submitted to them makes no significant First Amendment difference. In Hurley, the Court held that the parade organizers’ “lenient” admissions policy did “not forfeit” their right to reject the few messages they found harmful or offensive. 515 U. S., at 569. Similarly here, that Facebook and YouTube convey a mass of messages does not license Texas to prohibit them from deleting posts they disfavor. Pp. 19–26.
(3) The interest Texas relies on cannot sustain its law. In the usual First Amendment case, the Court must decide whether to apply strict or intermediate scrutiny. But here, Texas’s law does not pass even the less stringent form of review. Under that standard, a law must further a “substantial governmental interest” that is “unrelated to the suppression of free expression.” United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377. Many possible interests relating to social media can meet that test. But Texas’s asserted interest relates to the suppression of free expression, and it is not valid, let alone substantial.
Texas has never been shy, and always been consistent, about its interest: The objective is to correct the mix of viewpoints that major platforms present. But a State may not interfere with private actors’ speech to advance its own vision of ideological balance. States (and their citizens) are of course right to want an expressive realm in which the public has access to a wide range of views. But the way the First Amendment achieves that goal is by preventing the government from “tilt[ing] public debate in a preferred direction,” Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552, 578–579, not by licensing the government to stop private actors from speaking as they wish and preferring some views over others. A State cannot prohibit speech to rebalance the speech market. That unadorned interest is not “unrelated to the suppression of free expression.” And Texas may not pursue it consistent with the First Amendment. Pp. 26–29.
No. 22–277, 34 F. 4th 1196; No. 22–555, 49 F. 4th 439; vacated and remanded.
Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined in full, and in which Jackson, J., joined as to Parts I, II and III–A. Barrett, J., filed a concurring opinion. Jackson, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas and Gorsuch, JJ., joined.
Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined in full, and in which Jackson, J., joined as to Parts I, II and III-A. Barrett, J., filed a concurring opinion. Jackson, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. (Opinion together with No. 22-555). |
Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined in full, and in which Jackson, J., joined as to Parts I, II and III-A. Barrett, J., filed a concurring opinion. Jackson, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. (Opinion together with No. 22-555). |
Argued. For petitioners: Henry C. Whitaker, Solicitor General, Tallahassee, Fla. For respondents: Paul D. Clement, Alexandria, Va.; and Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) |
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. |
Reply of respondents Netchoice, LLC, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Reply of Netchoice, LLC, et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Center for renewing America submitted. |
Amicus brief of iTexasPolitics, LLC d/b/a The Texan and PowerHouse Management, Inc. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Open Markets Institute submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of Moms for Liberty, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Amicus brief of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of iTexasPolitics, LLC d/b/a The Texan, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Amicus brief of Moms for Liberty, Institute for Free Speech submitted. |
Amicus brief of Donald J. Trump submitted. |
Amicus brief of Donald W. Landry submitted. |
Amicus brief of Children’s Health Defense submitted. |
Amicus brief of Amicus Populi submitted. |
Amicus brief of Babylon Bee and Not the Bee submitted. |
Amicus brief of The Center for American Liberty submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of American Principles Project filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Amicus brief of American Principles Project submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Children’s Health Defense filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Amicus brief of Amicus Populi submitted. |
Amicus brief of Open Markets Institute submitted. |
Amicus brief of Open Markets Institute submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Open Markets Institute filed.(Jan. 30, 2023) VIDED. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Amicus Populi filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Open Markets Institute filed (Jan. 30, 2024.) VIDED. (Distributed) |
Amicus brief of Amicus Populi submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of Babylon Bee and Not the Bee filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Donald W. Landry filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Donald J. Trump filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Eric Rasmusen filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Amicus brief of The Rutherford Institute submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of The Center for American Liberty filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Amicus brief of World Faith Foundation submitted. |
Amicus brief of States Missouri, Ohio, Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, N. Dakota, Oklahoma, S. Carolina, S. Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, AZ Legislature submitted. |
Amicus brief of Keep the Republic submitted. |
Motion of United States for leave to participate in oral argument and for divided argument submitted. |
Amicus brief of The Heartland Institute submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of World Faith Foundation filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Keep the Republic filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of The Heartland Institute filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Center for renewing America filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Missouri, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. |
Amicus brief of Legal Scholars Adam Candeub & Adam MacLeod submitted. |
Amicus brief of Legal Scholars Adam Canteub & Adam MacLeod submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Dr. Christos A. Makridis filed. VIDED (Distributed) |
Amicus brief of Dr. Christos A. Makridis submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of The Digital Progress Institute filed. VIDED (Distributed) |
Amicus brief of The Digital Progress Institute submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of Legal Scholars Adam Candeub, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Brief of Ashley Moody, Attorney General of Florida, et al. submitted. |
Brief of petitioners Ashley Moody, Attorney General of Florida, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
CIRCULATED. |
Record received from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The record is electronic and is available on PACER. |
Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. |
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, February 26, 2024. |
Amicus brief of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Support of Neither Party submitted. |
Amicus brief of International Center for Law & Economics submitted. |
Amicus brief of Chamber of Progress et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Reason Foundation; Committee for Justice; Competitive Enterprise Institute; Taxpayers Protection Alliance submitted. |
Amicus brief of American Jewish Committee submitted. |
Amicus brief of International Center for Law & Economics submitted. |
Amicus brief of Cato Institute submitted. |
Amicus brief of National Taxpayers Union Foundation submitted. |
Amicus brief of Discord, Inc. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Center for Democracy & Technology submitted. |
Amicus brief of Professor Christopher S. Yoo submitted. |
Amicus brief of Protect the First Foundation submitted. |
Amicus brief of States of New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘I, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia submitted. |
Amicus brief of Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of Former Representative Christopher Cox and Senator Ron Wyden filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Engine Advocacy filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of U.S. SENATOR BEN RAY LUJÁN filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Reddit, Inc. filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Article 19: Global Campaign for Free Expression, et al. filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Economists in support of neither party filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Internet Society filed. VIDED. |
Amicus brief of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America submitted. |
Amicus brief of The Trust & Safety Foundation submitted. |
Amicus brief of United States submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University in support of neither party filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Public Knowledge filed. VIDED. |
Amicus brief of Center for Growth and Opportunity, et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Francis Fukuyama submitted. |
Amicus brief of Engine Advocacy submitted. |
Amicus brief of U.S. SENATOR BEN RAY LUJÁN submitted. |
Amicus brief of American Center for Law and Justice submitted. |
Amicus brief of Marketplace Industry Association; Etsy, Inc.; OfferUp, Inc.; eBay Inc. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Center for Social Media and Politics at New York University et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Economists of Technology Policy Institute submitted. |
Amicus brief of Public Knowledge submitted. |
Amicus brief of TechFreedom submitted. |
Amicus brief of Moderators of R/Law and R/Scotus submitted. |
Amicus brief of Americans for Prosperity Foundation submitted. |
Amicus brief of Former Representative Christopher Cox and Senator Ron Wyden submitted. |
Amicus brief of Wikimedia Foundation submitted. |
Amicus brief of Article 19: Global Campaign for Free Expression submitted. |
Amicus brief of The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law submitted. |
Amicus brief of Professors of History submitted. |
Amicus brief of Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Discord, Inc. filed. VIDED. |
Amicus brief of Reddit, Inc. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Electronic Privacy Information Center submitted. |
Amicus brief of National Security Experts submitted. |
Amicus brief of The Anti-Defamation League submitted. |
Amicus brief of PEN American Center and Library Futures submitted. |
Amicus brief of The Center for Business and Human Rights of the Leonard N. Stern School of Business at New York University submitted. |
Amicus brief of Internet Society submitted. |
Amicus brief of Developers Alliance and Software & Information Industry Association submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of National Security Experts in support of neither party filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Center for Social Media and Politics at New York University et al. in support of neither party filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of American Jewish Committee filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of The Anti-Defamation League in support of neither party filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of States of New York, et al. filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Professors of History filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in support of neither party filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Professor Christopher S. Yoo filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Moderators of R/Law and R/Scotus filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of The Center for Business and Human Rights of the Leonard N. Stern School of Business at New York University In support of neither party filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of The Trust & Safety Foundation filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Electronic Privacy Information Center filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of International Center for Law & Economics filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of PEN American Center and Library Futures filed. |
Brief amici curiae of New York, et al. filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Discord Inc. filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice in support of neither party filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Center for Social Media and Politics at New York University, et al. in support of neither party filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Reason Foundation, et al. filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Center for Growth and Opportunity, et al. filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Americans for Prosperity Foundation filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Moderators of R/Law and R/Scotus filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Progress, et al. filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Marketplace Industry Association, et al. filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Electronic Privacy Information Center supporting neither party filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Protect the First Foundation filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Marketplace Industry Association; et al. filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Reason Foundation; Committee for Justice; Competitive Enterprise Institute; Taxpayers Protection Alliance filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Center for Democracy & Technology filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Center for Social Media and Politics at New York University et al. filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of PEN American Center and Library Futures filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Developers Alliance, et al. filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Francis Fukuyama filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Progress et al. filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of TechFreedom filed. VIDED. |
Amicus brief of International Center for Law & Economics not accepted for filing. (Corrected electronic and paper briefs to be submitted--December 11, 2023) |
Brief amicus curiae of Wikimedia Foundation filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of National Taxpayers Union Foundation filed. VIDED. |
Amicus brief of Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence submitted. |
Amicus brief of Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression submitted. |
Amicus brief of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Support of Neither Party submitted. |
Amicus brief of Bluesky, a Public Benefit Corporation, M. Chris Riley, an individual, and Floor64, Inc. d/b/a the Copia Institute submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Support of Neither Party (December 14, 2023) filed. VIDED. |
Amicus brief of Liberty Justice Center submitted. |
Amicus brief of First Amendment and Internet Law Scholars submitted. |
Amicus brief of Yelp Inc. submitted. |
Amicus brief of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Support of Neither Party not accepted for filing. (Corrected version submitted--December 14, 2023) |
Amicus brief of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Support of Neither Party not accepted for filing.(Corrected version submitted) (December 14, 2023) |
Amicus brief of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Support of Neither Party submitted. |
Amicus brief of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Support of Neither Party submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Liberty Justice Center filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of First Amendment and Internet Law Scholars filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Bluesky, a Public Benefit Corporation, M. Chris Riley, an individual, and Floor64, Inc. d/b/a the Copia Institute filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, et al. in support of neither party filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Support of Neither Party (DEC 14, 2023) filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Yelp Inc. filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Goldwater Institute filed. VIDED. |
Amicus brief of Internet Works, Glassdoor, LLC, Indeed, Inc., Nextdoor, Inc., Mozilla Corporation, Pinterest, Inc., Tripadvisor, LLC, Tumblr, Inc., Vimeo, Inc. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Internet Works, Glassdoor, LLC, Indeed, Inc., Nextdoor, Inc., Mozilla Corporation, Pinterest, Inc., Reddit, Inc., Tripadvisor, LLC, Tumblr, Inc., Vimeo, Inc. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Professor Eric Goldman submitted. |
Amicus brief of Goldwater Institute submitted. |
Amicus brief of Professors Richard L. Hasen, Brendan Nyhan, and Amy Wilentz submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Professor Eric Goldman filed. VIDED. |
Amicus brief of Washington Legal Foundation submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Professors Richard L. Hasen, Brendan Nyhan, and Amy Wilentz filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, et al. filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Internet Works, et al. filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press et al. filed. VIDED. |
Amicus brief of Media Law Resource Center, Inc. submitted. |
Joint Appendix submitted. |
Brief of Netchoice, LLC, et al. submitted. |
Joint appendix filed. |
Joint appendix filed. (Statement of cost received.) |
Brief of respondents Netchoice, LLC, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Media Law Resource Center, Inc. filed. VIDED |
The following briefing schedule is adopted: Respondents in No. 22-277 and petitioners in No. 22-555 shall file opening briefs on the merits on or before Thursday, November 30, 2023, and the briefs shall bear a light blue cover. Any brief of an amicus curiae in support or in support of neither party shall be filed on or before Thursday, December 7, 2023, and the brief shall bear a light green cover. Petitioners in No. 22-277 and respondents in No. 22-555 shall file response briefs on the merits on or before Tuesday, January 16, 2024, and those briefs shall bear a light red cover. Any brief of an amicus curiae in support shall be filed on or before Tuesday, January 23, 2024, and the briefs shall bear a dark green cover. Reply briefs shall be filed in compliance with Rule 25.3, and the briefs shall bear a yellow cover. An amicus curiae shall file only a single brief in these cases. |
Petition GRANTED limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the Solicitor General in her brief for the United States as amicus curiae. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023. |
Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. VIDED. |
The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/20/2023. |
Rescheduled. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023. |
Reply of petitioners Ashley Moody, Attorney General of Florida, et al., filed. |
Brief of respondents Netchoice, LLC, et al. in opposition filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Reynaldo Gonzalez, et al. in support of neither party filed. |
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Attorney General, Florida, et al. |
Brief amicus curiae of Philip Hamburger in support of neither party filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Alan B. Morrison filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Freedom X filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Donald J. Trump filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Ohio, et al. filed. |
Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Netchoice, LLC, et al. |
Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed. |
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 24, 2022) |
Application (22A131) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until September 21, 2022. |
Application (22A131) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 21, 2022 to September 21, 2022, submitted to Justice Thomas. |