Filing: the Biden administration urges SCOTUS to review key parts of Florida's and Texas' laws meant to restrict how social media companies can moderate content
Don't they realize Nazis are bad for business? The Texas & Florida lawmakers actually chose their principles (racism) over being pro-business. … X: Greg Stohr / @gregstohr : Biden administration backs social media companies, urges Scotus to strike down core of Texas and Florida laws that would curb the editorial discretion of Facebook, Google and other big platforms. https://www.bloomberg.com/... @netchoice : Today, the Solicitor General submitted a brief in our cases with @ccianet pending Supreme Court review against Texas and Florida, NetChoice & CCIA v. Paxton and NetChoice & CCIA v. Moody. We hope the Court will agree to hear our cases: https://netchoice.org/... [image] @jess_miers : This afternoon, the DOJ filed their brief advising SCOTUS to grant cert in the @NetChoice and @ccianet speech cases against Texas and Florida. Two key takeaways: (1) The Texas and Florida laws violate 1A; (2) the mandatory disclosures may not https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ... @jess_miers : The brief is overall good news from the SG's office. SG recognizes that the states have no business interfering with protected editorial decision-making (i.e. content moderation). However, I was disappointed with the conclusion that the general disclosures do not merit review. Wendy Davis / @wendyndavis : DOJ: “When a social-media platform selects, edits, and arranges third-party speech for presentation to the public, it engages in activity protected by the First Amendment.” Wendy Davis / @wendyndavis : DOJ urges SCOTUS to decide whether key portions of Texas and Florida social media laws violate the 1st Amendment https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ... [image] See also Mediagazer
Context & Ripple Effects
The filing aligned the federal government with platform-industry challengers that had already sought to overturn Texas’ measure, including the tech groups’ earlier First Amendment challenge to the Texas law. The central dispute is whether selecting, editing, and arranging user posts is protected editorial activity.
It became an early step in a longer Supreme Court arc: the Court later agreed to hear the Florida and Texas cases, and ultimately sent them back for renewed First Amendment analysis rather than resolving the laws’ validity outright.
First-order effects
- DOJ support strengthens the platforms’ constitutional case by presenting the federal government’s view that core moderation and curation choices are editorial conduct.
- Texas and Florida face a direct federal argument that their restrictions cannot compel platforms to carry or arrange speech against their editorial judgment.
Second-order effects
- The dispute puts other state attempts to dictate platform treatment of user content under closer constitutional scrutiny, while leaving companies to defend moderation policies through litigation rather than state-by-state compliance alone.
- Industry groups such as NetChoice and CCIA gain a more unified litigation position, but the later order for fresh lower-court analysis means the practical limits on state regulation remain unsettled.
Third-order effects
- If courts continue to treat platform curation as protected editorial activity, states will have a narrower path to regulating moderation directly and may shift toward rules focused on disclosure or platform processes.
- The cases test the boundary of interface-neutral platform governance: whether public-facing digital intermediaries can be regulated like conduits without displacing their own speech rights.
The trend: The broader trend is a constitutional struggle over whether social platforms are editorial publishers, neutral conduits, or a distinct class requiring tailored governance.