WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a final ruling on whether Republican-backed laws in Florida and Texas that seek to regulate social media companies’ content moderation practices violate constitutional protections for free speech.
Instead, the justices sent the two related cases back to lower courts for additional deliberations on the legal questions raised under the Constitution’s First Amendment.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote on behalf of the court in a ruling on both cases that “there is still much work to do” before judges can determine whether the laws should be repealed.
The court noted that the Texas law is particularly vulnerable, with Kagan saying it is “unlikely to withstand First Amendment scrutiny.”
The justices were unanimous in their finding, although only five other justices joined Kagan’s majority opinion.
These are articles of law that restrict platforms from banning certain problematic users or limiting the scope of their messages.
Some judges raised concerns about freedom of expression regarding the laws during oral arguments in February, although there were also concerns about the legality of some provisions.
Some judges suggested that the laws may have legitimate applications on other platforms or services, including messaging apps, meaning the court could not simply throw them out.
The two connected cases highlight the growing power of social media platforms and concerns expressed by conservatives that moderation policies disproportionately affect them.
In another case raising related issues, the justices last week rejected a Republican effort to restrict the Biden administration’s contacts with social media companies. Republicans have alleged that the administration has forced platforms to remove certain content it objects to, on issues such as COVID-19.
Trade groups NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, known as CCIA, have challenged the Texas and Florida laws, saying they infringe on companies’ free speech rights by limiting their ability to choose what content to publish on their platforms.
Free speech protections under the First Amendment apply only to government actions, not to corporate actions.
The laws were enacted by Republican-led states in 2021 after Twitter, Facebook and others banned former President Donald Trump after his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election culminated in the storming of the Capitol by his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021.
In a move that somewhat undermined the rationale for passing the laws, Twitter was acquired the following year by billionaire Elon Musk, who has allied with conservative critics of the platform and allowed several banned users to return.
Both laws place restrictions on content moderation and require companies to provide individualized explanations to users when content is removed.
Florida’s law prevents companies from banning public figures from running for political office and limits “shadow banning,” which makes certain user content difficult for other users to find, which the state says constitutes censorship.
Texas law prohibits platforms from banning users based on the opinions they express. Each law requires the companies to disclose their moderation policies.
In their legal arguments, the states equated social media companies to the telecommunications industry, which transmits speech but has no editorial input. Such “common carriers” are heavily regulated by the government and do not raise free speech issues.
Underscoring the political nature of the cases, President Joe Biden’s administration filed a brief supporting the legal challenges, while Trump supported the laws.
Earlier in the litigation, the Supreme Court blocked the Texas law from taking effect in May 2022. An appeals court similarly blocked the Florida law.
The cases failed to address another divisive issue: the legal immunity that internet companies have long enjoyed for content posted by their users. The court also sidestepped a ruling on the issue last year.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
