U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Texas porn age verification law restarts fight with similar Florida legislation
The court, in a 6-3 decision, said the Texas law does not violate First Amendment rights and that at least 21 other states — including Florida — "have imposed materially similar age-verification requirements to access sexual material that is harmful to minors online."
As the Supreme Court weighed the Texas case in January, Tallahassee-based U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a stay of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Florida law. Walker on Friday quickly lifted the stay and gave directions to lawyers, including about filing "supplemental arguments now that the Supreme Court has provided additional guidance as to the applicable level of scrutiny that applies to plaintiffs' claims."
What the Supreme Court decision says
Friday's majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, said age-verification laws "fall within states' authority to shield children from sexually explicit content."
"The First Amendment leaves undisturbed states' traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective," said the opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. "That power necessarily includes the power to require proof of age before an individual can access such speech. It follows that no person — adult or child — has a First Amendment right to access speech that is obscene to minors without first submitting proof of age."
But Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the age-verification requirement would burden the First Amendment rights of adults who want to view websites with pornographic content.
"Texas can of course take measures to prevent minors from viewing obscene-for-children speech," Kagan wrote. "But if a scheme other than H. B. 1181 (the Texas law) can just as well accomplish that objective and better protect adults' First Amendment freedoms, then Texas should have to adopt it (or at least demonstrate some good reason not to). A state may not care much about safeguarding adults' access to sexually explicit speech; a state may even prefer to curtail those materials for everyone. Many reasonable people, after all, view the speech at issue here as ugly and harmful for any audience. But the First Amendment protects those sexually explicit materials, for every adult. So a state cannot target that expression, as Texas has here, any more than is necessary to prevent it from reaching children."
Where does Florida's law stand now after the ruling?
Florida lawmakers passed the age-verification requirements in 2024 as part of a broader bill (HB 3) that also seeks to prevent children under age 16 from opening social-media accounts on some platforms. The social-media part of the bill drew a separate constitutional challenge, with Walker this month issuing a preliminary injunction to block it on First Amendment grounds.
The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry group, and other plaintiffs filed the lawsuit challenging the pornography-related part of the law. The Free Speech Coalition also has been a plaintiff in the Texas case.
The Florida lawsuit centers on part of the law that applies to any business that "knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors on a website or application, if the website or application contains a substantial portion of material harmful to minors." It defines "substantial portion" as more than 33.3 percent of total material on a website or app.
In such situations, the law requires businesses to use methods to "verify that the age of a person attempting to access the material is 18 years of age or older and prevent access to the material by a person younger than 18 years of age."
The lawsuit raises objections about how the law would apply to minors and adults, including saying it "demands that, as a condition of access to constitutionally protected content, an adult must provide a digital proof of identity to adult content websites that are doubtlessly capable of tracking specific searches and views of some of the most sensitive, personal, and private contents a human being might search for."
The lawsuit also alleges that the law does not properly differentiate between older minors and younger children.
In addition to alleging violations of First Amendment rights, the lawsuit contends that the law violates due-process rights, the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause and what is known as the Supremacy Clause — issues that were not addressed in Friday's opinion about the Texas law.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
a few seconds ago
- CNN
Maxwell offers to testify before Congress but with major conditions, including immunity
Jeffrey Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell has offered to testify before Congress, but with major conditions, including immunity, according to a list of her demands sent to the House Oversight Committee by her attorneys. House Oversight Chair James Comer subpoenaed Maxwell to testify next month. In a new letter sent to Comer Tuesday, Maxwell's attorneys said they initially decided to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights, but then offered to cooperate with Congress 'if a fair and safe path forward can be established.' Her attorneys noted Maxwell is currently appealing her conviction to the Supreme Court and argued that 'any testimony she provides now could compromise her constitutional rights, prejudice her legal claims, and potentially taint a future jury pool.' 'Compounding these concerns are public comments from members of Congress that appear to have prejudged Ms. Maxwell's credibility without even listening to what she has to say or evaluating the extensive documentation that corroborates it,' the letter states. An Oversight Committee spokeswoman on Tuesday rejected the idea of giving Maxwell immunity. 'The Oversight Committee will respond to Ms. Maxwell's attorney soon, but it will not consider granting congressional immunity for her testimony,' the spokeswoman said. Maxwell's conditions as laid out by her attorneys include: A grant of formal immunity. The interview can't happen at the correctional facility where she's serving her sentence. 'To prepare adequately for any congressional deposition—and to ensure accuracy and fairness—we would require the Committee's questions in advance….Surprise questioning would be both inappropriate and unproductive.' The interview would be scheduled 'only after the resolution of her Supreme Court petition and her forthcoming habeas petition.' Maxwell's attorneys said if the demands cannot be met, 'Maxwell will have no choice but to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights.' Notably, the letter ended with a final appeal to President Donald Trump for clemency. 'Of course, in the alternative, if Ms. Maxwell were to receive clemency, she would be willing—and eager—to testify openly and honestly, in public, before Congress in Washington, D.C. She welcomes the opportunity to share the truth and to dispel the many misconceptions and misstatements that have plagued this case from the beginning,' her attorneys said. CNN's Annie Grayer contributed to this story. This is a developing story and will be updated.
NBC News
30 minutes ago
- NBC News
EPA moves to repeal finding that underpins current limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cars, factories, power plants
President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday proposed revoking a scientific finding that has long been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change. The proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule rescinds a 2009 declaration that determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The 'endangerment finding' is the legal underpinning of a host of climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the proposed rule change on a podcast ahead of an official announcement set for Tuesday in Indiana. Repealing the endangerment finding 'will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America,' Zeldin said on the Ruthless podcast. Zeldin called for a rewrite of the endangerment finding in March as part of a series of environmental rollbacks announced at the same time in what Zeldin said was 'the greatest day of deregulation in American history.'' A total of 31 key environmental rules on topics from clean air to clean water and climate change would be rolled back or repealed under Zeldin's plan. He singled out the endangerment finding as 'the Holy Grail of the climate change religion' and said he was thrilled to end it 'as the EPA does its part to usher in the Golden Age of American success.'' Tailpipe emission limits also targeted The EPA also called for rescinding limits on tailpipe emissions that were designed to encourage automakers to build and sell more electric vehicles. The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Three former EPA leaders have criticized Zeldin, saying his March proposal would endanger the lives of millions of Americans and abandon the agency's dual mission to protect the environment and human health. 'If there's an endangerment finding to be found anywhere, it should be found on this administration because what they're doing is so contrary to what the Environmental Protection Agency is about,' Christine Todd Whitman, who led EPA under Republican President George W. Bush, said after Zeldin's plan was made public. The EPA proposal follows an executive order from Trump that directed the agency to submit a report 'on the legality and continuing applicability' of the endangerment finding. Conservatives and some congressional Republicans hailed the initial plan, calling it a way to undo economically damaging rules to regulate greenhouse gases. But environmental groups, legal experts and Democrats said any attempt to repeal or roll back the endangerment finding would be an uphill task with slim chance of success. The finding came two years after a 2007 Supreme Court ruling holding that the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. A 'kill shot' to invalidate all climate regulations David Doniger, a climate expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said it was virtually 'impossible to think that the EPA could develop a contradictory finding (to the 2009 standard) that would stand up in court.' Doniger and other critics accused Trump's Republican administration of using potential repeal of the endangerment finding as a 'kill shot'' that would allow him to make all climate regulations invalid. If finalized, repeal of the endangerment finding would erase current limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cars, factories, power plants and other sources and could prevent future administrations from proposing rules to tackle climate change. 'The Endangerment Finding is the legal foundation that underpins vital protections for millions of people from the severe threats of climate change, and the Clean Car and Truck Standards are among the most important and effective protections to address the largest U.S. source of climate-causing pollution,'' said Peter Zalzal, associate vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund. 'Attacking these safeguards is manifestly inconsistent with EPA's responsibility to protect Americans' health and well-being,'' he said. 'It is callous, dangerous and a breach of our government's responsibility to protect the American people from this devastating pollution.'
an hour ago
EPA moves to repeal landmark finding that allows climate regulation
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday proposed revoking a scientific finding that has long been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change. The proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule rescinds a 2009 declaration that determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The 'endangerment finding' is the legal underpinning of a host of climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called for a rewrite of the endangerment finding in March as part of a series of environmental rollbacks announced at the same time in what Zeldin said was "the greatest day of deregulation in American history.'' A total of 31 key environmental rules on topics from clean air to clean water and climate change would be rolled back or repealed under Zeldin's plan. He singled out the endangerment finding as 'the Holy Grail of the climate change religion' and said he was thrilled to end it 'as the EPA does its part to usher in the Golden Age of American success.'' The EPA also called for rescinding limits on tailpipe emissions that were designed to encourage automakers to build and sell more electric vehicles. The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Three former EPA leaders have criticized Zeldin, saying his March proposal would endanger the lives of millions of Americans and abandon the agency's dual mission to protect the environment and human health. 'If there's an endangerment finding to be found anywhere, it should be found on this administration because what they're doing is so contrary to what the Environmental Protection Agency is about,' Christine Todd Whitman, who led EPA under Republican President George W. Bush, said after Zeldin's plan was made public. The EPA proposal follows an executive order from Trump that directed the agency to submit a report 'on the legality and continuing applicability' of the endangerment finding. Conservatives and some congressional Republicans hailed the initial plan, calling it a way to undo economically damaging rules to regulate greenhouse gases. But environmental groups, legal experts and Democrats said any attempt to repeal or roll back the endangerment finding would be an uphill task with slim chance of success. The finding came two years after a 2007 Supreme Court ruling holding that the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. David Doniger, a climate expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said it was virtually 'impossible to think that the EPA could develop a contradictory finding (to the 2009 standard) that would stand up in court.' Doniger and other critics accused Trump's Republican administration of using potential repeal of the endangerment finding as a 'kill shot'' that would allow him to make all climate regulations invalid. If finalized, repeal of the endangerment finding would erase current limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cars, factories, power plants and other sources and could prevent future administrations from proposing rules to tackle climate change. "The Endangerment Finding is the legal foundation that underpins vital protections for millions of people from the severe threats of climate change, and the Clean Car and Truck Standards are among the most important and effective protections to address the largest U.S. source of climate-causing pollution,'' said Peter Zalzal, associate vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund. 'Attacking these safeguards is manifestly inconsistent with EPA's responsibility to protect Americans' health and well-being,'' he said. 'It is callous, dangerous and a breach of our government's responsibility to protect the American people from this devastating pollution."
