Close this menu

NetChoice Wins at Supreme Court Over Texas and Florida’s Unconstitutional Speech Control Schemes

WASHINGTON—Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of NetChoice & CCIA’s core First Amendment arguments against Texas and Florida’s unconstitutional laws controlling online speech, NetChoice & CCIA v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice & CCIA. The opinion, written by Justice Kagan, sent our cases back to the lower courts for further factual development while explaining that the First Amendment protects against Texas and Florida’s bungled, unconstitutional laws that would have transferred control over Americans’ speech to the government. 

“Today’s ruling from the Supreme Court is a victory for First Amendment rights online,” said Chris Marchese, Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. “As our cases head back to the lower courts for consideration, the Supreme Court agreed with all our First Amendment arguments. Free speech is a cornerstone of our republic. As we prepare to celebrate the 248th anniversary of American independence this week, we are gratified to see the Supreme Court acknowledge the Constitution’s unparalleled protections for free speech, including the world’s most important communications tool, the internet.”

Marchese continued: “NetChoice will continue to vigorously defend Americans’ rights to free expression online.”

The Court’s decision means that the District Court injunctions against both laws will remain in place as the cases return to the lower courts for further factual findings and analysis.

The Court’s ruling in NetChoice & CCIA’s favor makes several key points:

  • “On the spectrum of dangers to free expression, there are few greater than allowing the government to change the speech of private actors in order to achieve its own conception of speech nirvana.” (Majority opinion)
  • “To give government that power is to enable it to control the expression of ideas, promoting those it favors and suppressing those it does not.” (Majority opinion)
  • “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.” (Majority opinion)
  • “Deciding on the third-party speech that will be included in or excluded from a compilation—and then organizing and presenting the included items—is expressive activity of its own.” (Majority opinion)
  • “When the government interferes with such editorial choices—say, by ordering the excluded to be included—it alters the content of the compilation.” (Majority opinion)
  • “A State may not interfere with private actors’ speech to advance its own vision of ideological balance.” (Majority opinion)
  • “It is no job for government to decide what counts as the right balance of private expression—to ‘un-bias’ what it thinks biased, rather than to leave such judgments to speakers and their audiences.” (Majority opinion)
  • “Corporations, which are composed of human beings with First Amendment rights, possess First Amendment rights themselves.” (Barrett, J., concurring)

You can read the Supreme Court’s ruling here. Find more information on NetChoice & CCIA v. Paxton here and Moody v. NetChoice & CCIA here.

Please contact Krista Chavez at with inquiries.