Supreme Court upholds Texas law requiring age verification on porn websites
Print Close
By Alexandra Koch
Published June 27, 2025
The Supreme Court of the United States on Friday upheld a Texas law requiring pornography websites to verify visitors' ages to protect minors from sexually explicit content online.
Justices ruled 6-3 that requiring adults in Texas to verify their age does not violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, noting at least 21 other states imposed similar regulations on sexual material that could be harmful to minors online.
Texas and other states prohibit the distribution of sexually explicit content to children in brick and mortar stores, but online content remains largely unregulated.
'WE WON': SOCIAL MEDIA ERUPTS OVER SCOTUS RULING DEALING 'FATAL BLOW' TO TRANSGENDER SURGERIES ON MINORS
Lawmakers from the Lone Star State enacted a bill requiring certain commercial websites that publish sexually explicit content to verify the ages of those entering the site, which the justices upheld as constitutional, noting at least 21 other states imposed similar regulations on sexual material that could be harmful to minors.
Those who visit sexually explicit websites will need to use government-issued identification or a "commercially reasonable method that relies on public or private transactional data."
Sites can perform verification themselves or through a third-party service.
SCOTUS RULES ON STATE BAN ON GENDER TRANSITION 'TREATMENTS' FOR MINORS IN LANDMARK CASE
If website owners knowingly violate the law, the Supreme Court ruled the Texas attorney general can sue and collect a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per day that the site is non-compliant.
They can also collect an additional penalty of up to $250,000 if any minors accessed the covered sexual material as a result of the violation.
TEXAS BILL PUSHES STRICTEST SOCIAL MEDIA BAN FOR MINORS IN THE NATION
Justices wrote in their opinion that internet access has drastically changed since 1999, when only two out of five American households had a computer.
In 2024, 95 percent of American teens had access to a smartphone, with 93 percent reporting frequent internet use.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan argued speech that is obscene for minors is often not obscene for adults.
"So adults have a constitutional right to view the very same speech that a State may prohibit for children," Kagan wrote. "And it is a fact of life—and also of law—that adults and children do not live in hermetically sealed boxes. In preventing children from gaining access to 'obscene for children' speech, States sometimes take measures impeding adults from viewing it too—even though, for adults, it is constitutionally protected expression.
"But what if Texas could do better—what if Texas could achieve its interest without so interfering with adults' constitutionally protected rights in viewing the speech H. B. 1181 covers? That is the ultimate question on which the Court and I disagree."
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Pornhub and other pornography giants have stopped service in Texas and other states where regulations are in place. Print Close
URL
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-upholds-texas-law-requiring-age-verification-porn-websites
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
31 minutes ago
- CNN
Takeaways from the Supreme Court's ruling on power of judges and birthright citizenship
The Supreme Court delivered a major win to President Donald Trump on Friday in his ongoing war with the federal judiciary, limiting the power of courts to step in and block policies on a nationwide basis in the short term while judges review their legality. Though the case was intertwined with Trump's executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship, the ruling does not settle the issue of whether the president can enforce that order. And there were signs that lower courts could move swiftly to block the policy. But the high court's decision does mean that Americans seeking to challenge Trump's future policies may have to jump through additional hoops to succeed. Exactly how that will work remains to be seen and will be hashed out by lower courts in coming days. Here's what to know about the court's decision: The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling could have far-reaching consequences for Trump's second term, even if his birthright citizenship order is never enforced. That's because it will limit the power of courts to strike down other policies in the future. Presidents of both parties have complained about nationwide injunctions for years and Trump has noted, correctly, that there have been far more issued against him than presidents in the past. Lower courts, for instance, have used the orders to temporarily block his efforts to deport migrants under the Alien Enemies Act and prohibit transgender service members in the military. 'This was a big decision,' Trump said from the White House shortly after the ruling was issued. The president described the outcome as an 'amazing decision, one that we're very happy about.' But exactly how future litigation shakes out remains to be seen. Private parties – in the birthright citizenship case, a group of pregnant women who sued – may still be able to get a court to shut down a policy temporarily through a class-action lawsuit. And states may still be able to secure a hold on an administration's policies in the short term as well. By siding with Trump, the conservative Supreme Court ended a term with a second blockbuster decision in his favor for the second time in as many years. Last year, a 6-3 majority ruled that Trump – and other presidents – are at least presumptively immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken in office. The decision allowed Trump to avoid a trial on federal election subversion charges that were pending against him. And since taking office again in January, Trump has won case after case on the Supreme Court's emergency docket. A decision earlier in the week allowing Trump to deport certain migrants to countries other than their homeland marked the 10th time the court has granted a request from Trump on the emergency docket, though a few of those cases amounted to a mixed win for the administration. The court has allowed Trump to fire board members at independent agencies, remove transgender Americans from military service and end other protections for migrants, even those in the country legally. Friday's ruling, from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump has disparaged behind closed doors, is his biggest win yet. The court's three liberals split from their conservative colleagues' blockbuster ruling in blistering dissents, ringing the alarm on how the decision will permit Trump or future presidents to enforce unlawful policies even as legal challenges to them play out. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the liberal wing, said the majority had 'shamefully' played along with the administration's 'gamesmanship' in the case, which she described as an attempt to enforce a 'patently unconstitutional' policy by not asking the justices to bless the policy, but instead to limit the power of federal judges around the country. 'The court's decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution. The executive branch can now enforce policies that flout settled law and violate countless individuals' constitutional rights, and the federal courts will be hamstrung to stop its actions fully,' she wrote. The court's senior liberal member took the rare step of reading parts of her dissent from the bench on Friday for around 20 minutes. In doing so, she added in a line not included in her written dissent to invoke the court's landmark ruling last year that granted Trump broad immunity from criminal prosecution. 'The other shoe has dropped on executive immunity,' Sotomayor declared from the bench. Separately, in a scathing solo dissent on Friday, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to raise the stakes of the injunction case even more, accusing her conservative colleagues of creating 'an existential threat to the rule of law' by allowing Trump to 'violate the Constitution.' 'I have no doubt that, if judges must allow the executive to act unlawfully in some circumstances, as the court concludes today, executive lawlessness will flourish, and from there, it is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' she wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional republic will be no more.' Though the court significantly curtailed the ability of Trump's legal foes to get the type of court orders that block or slow down his enforcement of various policies nationwide, the conservative justices left on the table one key legal avenue: class-action lawsuits in which a litigant sues on behalf of a larger group of similarly situated individuals to get relief for all people who could be potentially be affected by a policy. Several groups moved quickly Friday to do just that. The immigrant rights groups and pregnant women challenging Trump's order in Maryland pressed the federal judge who previously blocked the policy to do so again through a class action lawsuit. Such class-action litigation could potentially lead to the same outcome as nationwide injunctions – and during arguments in the case, several justices questioned the significance of shifting the emphasis to class-action suits. One difference is that a judge generally must take the extra step of thinking about who should be covered by an injunction. During arguments in the case in May, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the difference may be nothing more than 'technicality.' 'We care about technicalities,' he said at the time. 'And this may all be a technicality.' Lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs asked US District Judge Deborah Boardman to certify a nationwide class that would include any children who have been born or would be born after February 19, 2025, and would be affected by Trump's order. They filed an updated lawsuit that would challenge Trump's order on behalf of all of those potential class members. They also asked Boardman, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, for an emergency order that would temporarily block Trump's executive order from applying to members of a 'putative class' of individuals that would be impacted by the policy. 'Consistent with the Supreme Court's most recent instructions, the Court can protect all members of the putative class from irreparable harm that the unlawful Executive Order threatens to inflict,' the lawsuit states The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing challengers in another case over Trump's order, on Friday filed a new class action lawsuit targeting Trump's order. 'That's one of the ways in which people who are harmed around the country by President Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship will be able to go and get protection from the courts for this fundamental American right,' ACLU national legal director Cecillia Wang told CNN. Barrett was careful to say that parties could still seek nationwide relief to pause a policy if that was required to address their harm. That is precisely the argument nearly two dozen Democratic states made challenging the birthright policy and while the court didn't directly address it, it left wide room for states to make that claim again. The states had argued they needed a nationwide block on Trump's birthright citizenship policy because it was too easy for people to cross state borders to have a baby in New Jersey – where that child would be a citizen – rather than staying in Pennsylvania, where it might not. Now, the states will likely return to a lower court and argue that the birthright policy should remain on hold while courts decide its constitutionality. 'We believe that we will prevail and that we've made the case already, and when the lower courts, under the instruction of the US Supreme Court, do that review, we will secure a nationwide injunction to provide relief to the plaintiff states,' California Attorney General of California Rob Bonta, a Democrat, told reporters. 'It's now up to the lower courts to reconsider if the nationwide injunction is appropriate and necessary to provide complete relief to the states whose AG's sued to challenge this order,' he said. That litigation could eventually work its way back to the Supreme Court. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the administration was 'very confident' the Supreme Court would eventually rule in its favor on the merits of Trump's executive order. 'Birthright citizenship will be decided in October, in the next session by the Supreme Court,' Bondi predicted at the White House. While Bondi's predicted timing might be optimistic, given the court's usual pace, there is a good chance the issue will eventually wind up before the justices.
CBS News
31 minutes ago
- CBS News
Spring Valley, N.Y. man arraigned for crash that killed 4-year-old girl on sidewalk with family
The man arrested for a fatal crash in Spring Valley, New York that killed a 4-year-old girl and severely injured three of her family members pleaded not guilty at his arraignment. Axel Lopez-Santiago wore an orange jumpsuit to his court appearance Friday in Rockland County after being charged with DWI and aggravated vehicular homicide in the death of 4-year-old Goldy Eisenbach. Goldy Eisenbach Eisenbach Family Police said Lopez-Santiago, 41, was drunk behind the wheel during the June 14 crash on Old Nyack Turnpike, where the girl and her family were struck on a sidewalk while leaving Kennedy Park. He suddenly veered across the double yellow line and struck at least four people before crashing into a tree, investigators said. He also faces second degree manslaughter, assault and reckless driving charges. "Insane, traumatic and horrific scene" Lopez-Santiago sat in a wheelchair as prosecutors said his blood alcohol content was .19 -- more than twice New York's legal limit -- two hours after the crash. Police said Lopez-Santiago struck four members of Yisroel Eisenbach's family, including Goldy, his daughter. "It looked literally like a bomb. I see a stroller on end, a yarmulke, the wheel of the stroller on the other end, and the car between a gate and a tree. It literally looked like a bomb and I didn't know what happened," Eisenbach's said. "EMTs showed up. They are first on the scene. There are bodies everywhere. It is an insane, traumatic and horrific scene." "He destroyed many, many, many families," said Moishe Eisenbach. 3 crash victims, including 2 children, seriously injured Three of the people struck in the crash, including two other children, survived with serious injuries. An injured adult, named Abraham, remained hospitalized in critical condition with an array of broken bones. Abraham's wife, Trana Loeffler, was on the sidewalk the night of the crash, but not struck. She said seeing the suspect in court brought her to peace. "I had to see him in cuffs to be able to get him out of my face, out of my mind, o be able to sleep better at night, because I'm so scared of him. Now I see that he is in jail and he's not getting any bail, I'm more relieved," Loeffler said. Goldy Eisenbach Eisenbach Family Eisenbach said his daughter "always wanted to be a peacemaker, always had a smile on her face, and always wanted to make others smile." "It's not easy losing a loved one, especially a tragic incident like that," he said. Lopez-Santiago is due back in court July 19. contributed to this report.
CBS News
31 minutes ago
- CBS News
Texas officials shut down 6 massage parlors allegedly linked to human trafficking, sexual services
Six massage parlors across Texas have been shut down after investigators uncovered alleged links to human trafficking, unlicensed activity, and sexual services, state officials announced. The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) issued a six-month emergency closure for these parlors effective June 16. The TDLR's investigation revealed that the six parlors are owned by the same person, Wanli Peng. Houston P&L Massages Therapy, PLLC, and Dallas Health Care Enterprise, LLC were also ordered to stop operations at the locations. The locations are: Massage A+, 3211 W. Wadley Ave., Ste. 12, Midland Healing Garden Massage, 956 S. Fry Rd., Katy Massage Pro 1, 2150 FM 2920 Rd., Ste. 200, Spring Massage Invite, 2685 Highway 6 S., Houston Yu Spa, 2001 Coit Rd., Ste. 169, Plano YY Spa, 501 Birdwell Ln., Ste. 17, Big Spring Advertisements connected to all the locations offering sexual services were found during the investigation, TDLR said. Investigators said they discovered a range of violations, including evidence that employees were living at the locations, employees working without licenses, and sexual paraphernalia and role-playing costumes on site. At the Plano location, Yu Spa, a customer reported to Plano Police that an employee had inappropriately touched him during a massage. Shortly after the complaint was filed, an employee from the spa was arrested and charged with prostitution, inappropriately touching an undercover cop and offering sexual services for pay. Peng also owns two additional massage businesses, Morris Spa in Flower Mound, Texas and Chi Kung Foot Spa in Dallas. TDLR investigators said they found "signs of human trafficking" at both locations. Peng surrendered the license for Morris Spa and was operating Chi Kung Foot Spa without one, officials said. Anyone who suspects human trafficking is occurring can contact the National Hotline for Human Trafficking at 1-888-373-7888 or text HELP or INFO to BeFree (233733). If the situation is an emergency or you believe someone is in immediate danger, call 911 and alert the authorities.
