Two groups representing Meta, Google, and others ask SCOTUS to block Texas' social media law prohibiting content moderation, arguing the law is unconstitutional
The emergency application follows a surprise ruling in a lower court Wednesday that allowed the law to take effect
Washington PostCat Zakrzewski
Context & Ripple Effects
A 2-1 appeals-court ruling had just allowed Texas to enforce restrictions on moderation by large social-media services, turning the industry groups’ emergency filing into an immediate operational and constitutional dispute. The subsequent 5-4 Supreme Court stay shows that the lower-court ruling did not settle the law’s status.
Texas’s position, outlined days later, was that platforms should be treated as common carriers—a framing directly at odds with Meta and Google’s claim that moderation is protected expression.
First-order effects
Meta, Google, and the other represented platforms face Texas’s moderation limits while their emergency request is pending, rather than operating under a lower-court block.
Texas gains a near-term opening to enforce its platform rules after the appeals court’s decision allowing enforcement, while defending their constitutionality before SCOTUS.
Second-order effects
The case forces Texas to press its common-carrier theory against the platforms’ First Amendment argument, making the Supreme Court’s interim posture consequential for both sides’ litigation strategy.
A Supreme Court intervention would immediately determine whether the platforms can maintain their existing moderation policies in Texas while the underlying constitutional challenge continues.
Third-order effects
The later appeals-court ruling upholding the measure after the Supreme Court stay underscores a durable split over whether platform curation is editorial judgment or conduct subject to common-carrier-style regulation.
If courts continue to entertain the common-carrier framing, state platform laws will increasingly test whether governments can set neutrality obligations for private online services.
The trend: Platform-governance litigation is increasingly centered on whether content moderation is protected editorial discretion or a service obligation that states may regulate.
As NetChoice's application notes, this immediate, bereft-of-explanation stay of the injunction wreaks immediate havoc without the benefit of identified rationale upon which review could be reasonably sought. https://twitter.com/...
BREAKING: After the 5th Circuit stayed the injunction against Texas' social media law only 2 days after arguments and without explanation, NetChoice has skipped en banc review and filed an application with SCOTUS for emergency relief vacating the stay: https://pdfhost.io/...
A right-leaning federal court stunningly reinstated a Texas law allowing users to sue FB, Twitter & YouTube for viewpoint “censorship”—making content moderation all but impossible. Now it will likely fall to SCOTUS to decide the future of online speech: https://www.washingtonpost…
Perhaps one of my favorites is the argument that “platforms can just say they don't agree with all the speech hosted on their sites.” I wonder what Thomas, J. thinks about that? https://twitter.com/...
Big deal and the right move, but like... you just know Clarence Thomas has a https://notes.app/ entry with fucked-up ideas about the First Amendment he's been saving for this moment https://www.theverge.com/...
It is tough when the appellate judges decide to just not explain themselves at all, so NetChoice was put into the unenviable position of having to explain 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘴 why the 5th Circuit could be wrong. https://twitter.com/...
The application goes to Alito. He may circulate it to the entire court for consideration, or he may decide it on its own. But if he does deny it, NetChoice can renew the application with any other Justice, per Rule 22(4). https://www.law.cornell.edu/ ...
Texas social media law goes against First Amendment, which is why we joined @NetChoice and @CCIAnet's challenge to the anti-consumer and unconstitutional law: http://progresschamber.org/... https://twitter.com/...
If you want to know why Elon Musk has put his deal for Twitter on hold, look no further than Texas. Every conservative lawyer in America is going to be filing lawsuits to try to end “censorship” of Twitter users; this is a new era in right-wing litigation. https://www.cnn.com/...
Despite the 5th Circuit's erroneous decision, the law remains clear: #1A prevents government from forcing private companies to host or delete speech. @CTAtech will continue to fight for online free expression and against opportunistic trial lawyer lawsuits http://progresschamber.…
It is virtually certain, if not now, then soon, that SCOTUS will rule on these issues. And if the application of the First Amendment is going to change, it should do so after that decision. Not in this whiplash-inducing manner that threatens to fragment the Internet by state. htt…
Texas also argued that only 𝘦𝘹 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦 decisions are editorial discretion. That distinction makes no sense and has no basis in anything other than feelings about what platforms ought to do: exactly what the First Amendment keeps government out of. https://twitter.com/...