Courthouse Steps Decision: NetChoice Cases

Two cases involving NetChoice, a company that represents social media giants like Facebook, Twitter, Google, and TikTok, were heard and decided by the Supreme Court this term. Both cases concern issues of free speech and social media platforms.
In Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, NetChoice challenged Florida law S.B. 7072, arguing it violates the social media companies’ right to free speech and that the law was preempted by federal law. In NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, NetChoice challenged the constitutionality of two sections of Texas law HB 20 (sections 7 and 2) that aims to regulate the content restrictions of large social media platforms. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled against Florida, the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas, creating a Circuit split. In light of that split the Supreme Court granted cert and heard oral argument in both cases on February 26, 2024. On July 1, 2024, a 9-0 court released its decision vacating both judgments based on a lack of "proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges" and remanding them for reconsideration.
This was a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we analyzed this decision and its possible ramifications.
Featuring:
Allison R. Hayward, Independent Analyst
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

[@AuroraColoradoUSA]

It's too late, but I'll say it anyway...
I was struck by the illogical oral argument from Paul Clement, the solicitor general, and a while back from Brown Jackson too. In Moody, Paul Clement kept repeating "They gave my clients immunity from third-party content liability in order to encourage my clients to censor that third-party content" (paraphrased). THAT'S SO STUPID. Apparently Mr Clement thought repeating that NONSENSE over and over again would somehow make it true. Of course it's the opposite... Shielding his clients from liability for third-party content does not encourage censorship of that content, AT ALL.

[@LegalesePodcast]

4:12 She slips into an uncanny impression of Justice Kagan as she reads her quote from the majority opinion. She captures Kagan's mannerisms and affectations brilliantly. I'm not even sure if she did that intentionally or was even aware that she did it. But the first time I was listening to this I wasn't really paying attention to the video and as she read that quote, just for a second, I really thought they had cut to a clip of Justice Kagan actually reading out that portion of the opinion.