The Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a Texas social media censorship law in a 5-4 decision.
Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer ruled in favor of the ruling on Tuesday.
BREAKING: Supreme Court blocks Texas' social media censorship law by an unusual 5–4 vote. https://t.co/S9iHvKOTlU pic.twitter.com/669Q0Izdjo
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) May 31, 2022
The case may return to the Supreme Court, though the current decision will stop the enforcement of the law, a ruling that stands in contrast to a court of appeals ruling earlier in May.
“The decision does not rule on the merits of the law, but reimposes an injunction blocking it from taking effect while federal courts decide on whether it can be enforced. The Supreme Court is likely to be asked to take a look at the constitutionality of the law in the future,” CNBC noted.
Here's the court's brief order blocking Texas from implementing the law for now, with a six-page dissent from Alito: https://t.co/nb2YE3JWJX
Note that Kagan did not sign onto Alito's dissent, though she indicated that she would have allowed the law to take effect.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) May 31, 2022
Justices Samuel Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Elena Kagan dissented in the case. Alito offered a lengthy dissent regarding the ruling.
“While I can understand the Court’s apparent desire to delay enforcement of HB20 while the appeal is pending, the preliminary injunction entered by the District Court was itself a significant intrusion on state sovereignty, and Texas should not be required to seek preclearance from the federal courts before its laws go into effect,” Alito wrote.
“The Court of Appeals, after briefing and oral argument, concluded that the District Court’s order should be stayed, and a decision on the merits can be expected in the near future. I would not disturb the Court of Appeals’ informed judgment about applicants’ entitlement to a stay,” he added.
Kagan did not join Alito’s dissent, though she indicated agreement with allowing the law to take effect.
In December, a federal judge had previously granted a preliminary injunction against the proposed law, which would prevent Big Tech giants like Twitter and Facebook from blocking content or banning users based on political viewpoints.
In September, Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott signed HB20 into law after it had passed the state’s legislature.
“There is a dangerous movement by some social media companies to silence conservative ideas and values,” said Abbott at the time. “This is wrong and we will not allow it in Texas.”
Judge Robert Pitman for the Western District of Texas granted the preliminary injunction in December, saying Big Tech companies have a First Amendment right to moderate content on their platforms.
As CNET reported, Judge Pitman also rejected the defendants’ argument that such companies are “common carriers,” adding that the state offered “no convincing support for recognizing a governmental interest in the free and unobstructed use of common carriers’ information conduits.”
“This Court is convinced that social media platforms, or at least those covered by HB 20, curate both users and content to convey a message about the type of community the platform seeks to foster and, as such, exercise editorial discretion over their platform’s content,” Pitman wrote in his ruling. “Without editorial discretion, social media platforms could not skew their platforms ideologically, as the State accuses of them of doing.”