Federal judge blocks Texas SCOPE law keeping kids from ‘democratic exchange of views online'
AUSTIN (KXAN) — A federal judge blocked enforcement of a Texas law that he found to restrict Texas minors' First Amendment rights, calling into question Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's claims that the law protects minors from content he calls 'harmful.'
PREVIOUS: Texas social media safety law faces court challenge
The Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment (SCOPE) Act or HB 18 requires websites like Facebook and TikTok to implement strategies to prevent a minor from accessing content that 'promotes, glorifies or facilitates' suicide, self-harm, eating disorders, substance abuse, stalking, bullying, harassment, grooming, trafficking, child [sexual assault material], or other sexual abuse.
Paxton suing TikTok, referencing SCOPE Act violations
Western Texas District Court Judge Robert Pitman said in the order that this part of HB 18 was 'as content based as it gets,' and thus deserving of strict scrutiny. Under that standard, Paxton must show a compelling state interest in censoring the content.
KXAN has reached out to Paxton for his response to the ruling.
'It is far from clear that Texas has a compelling interest in preventing minors' access to everysingle category of information listed above,' Pitman wrote. 'Many interests are not compelling, such as regulating content that might advocate for the deregulation of drugs (potentially 'promoting' 'substance abuse') or defending the morality of physician-assisted suicide (likely 'promoting' 'suicide').'
He also cited the Supreme Court's opinion in the 1975 case Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, where it found that 'speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them.'
'In its attempt to block children from accessing harmful content, Texas also prohibits minors from participating in the democratic exchange of views online,' Pitman wrote. 'Even accepting that Texas only wishes to prohibit the most harmful pieces of content, a state cannot pick and choose which categories of protected speech it wishes to block teenagers from discussing online.'
Pitman noted that many terms used in HB 18 are 'too vague' and 'politically charged.' Specifically, he called out the terms 'promoting, glorifying, substance abuse, harassment and grooming.'
The lawsuit was brought by Students Engaged in Advancing Texas, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and law firm Davis Wright Tremaine on behalf of three minors who said that their access to content and ability to post about their experiences had been limited.
'This is a tremendous victory against government censorship, especially for our clients—ordinary citizens—who stood up to the State of Texas,' said Adam Sieff, partner at Davis Wright Tremaine. 'The Court enjoined every substantive provision of the SCOPE Act we challenged, granting even broader relief than its first preliminary injunction. We hope this decision will give other states pause before broadly restricting free expression online.'
You can read Pitman's ruling below:
Order-Granting-In-Part-and-Denying-in-Part-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction-Students-Engaged-in-Advancing-Texas-v.-PaxtonDownload
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
32 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Judge largely denies request to block restrictions on getting measures on Florida's ballot
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — A federal judge has largely denied requests by grassroots campaigners to block portions of a new Florida law that restricts the state's citizen-driven process for getting constitutional amendments on the ballot. Organizers of separate campaigns to expand Medicaid and legalize recreational marijuana had urged U.S. District Mark Walker to block implementation of parts of the law, arguing that the new requirements violate their First Amendment rights. But in an order issued Wednesday, Walker granted a narrow injunction, barring state officials from enforcing one section of the law criminalizing ballot petition fraud against one campaign staffer. The order means that at least for now, the campaigns will largely have to operate under the new restrictions as they try to gather enough signatures to qualify for the 2026 ballot. Legislatures in dozens of states have advanced bills recently to crack down on the public's ability to put measures up for a vote, according to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center. Voting rights advocates say the trend betrays the promise of direct democracy. Under Florida's new law, an individual could be charged with a felony if they collect more than 25 signed ballot petitions, other than their own or those of immediate family members, and don't register with the state as a petition circulator. The law signed last month by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis also gives campaigns just 10 days instead of the previous 30 to return signed petition forms to local elections officials. Petitioners could also face stiff fines if they don't return the petitions on time, or send them to the wrong county. Lawmakers argue that the new restrictions are needed to reform a process they claim has been tainted by fraud. The Republican-controlled Legislature pushed the changes months after a majority of Florida voters supported ballot initiatives to protect abortion rights and legalize recreational marijuana, though the measures fell short of the 60% needed to pass. Attorneys for the campaigns Florida Decides Healthcare and Smart & Safe Florida have argued the new law makes gathering enough petitions from voters prohibitively expensive and effectively impossible. In his order, Walker wrote that the new provisions have caused 'an immediate reduction in protected speech' by constraining the campaigns' ability to collect petitions — and volunteers' willingness to help. But Walker said the campaigners didn't prove that their free speech rights had been 'severely burdened.' 'Instead, the record shows that these provisions simply make the process of getting their proposed initiatives on the ballot more expensive and less efficient for Plaintiffs,' Walker wrote. But there are still free speech concerns to address as the lawsuit moves forward, Walker noted: 'this Court is not suggesting that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on their First Amendment challenges to the new deadline and associated fines.' In a statement, Mitch Emerson, the executive director for Florida Decides Healthcare, said he remains optimistic for the legal challenge ahead. 'While the Court did not grant every part of our motion for preliminary relief, this is far from the final word,' Emerson said. A spokesperson for Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. ___ Kate Payne is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge refuses to temporarily halt most of the new ballot initiative restrictions
Most of the provisions in a new state law adding restrictions to the petition-gathering process will remain in effect while litigation continues. (Photo Jay Waagmeester/Florida Phoenix) In an early blow to groups attempting to get amendments on the ballot for the 2026 election, a federal judge declined on Wednesday to temporarily block most of the new restrictions on citizen-led initiatives. Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker's ruling allows Florida to proceed with enforcing most of HB 1205, one of Gov. Ron DeSantis' top priorities for this year's legislative session, while litigation brought by some of the groups sponsoring initiatives on the ballot on May 4 moves forward. In the meantime, the state can enforce provisions requiring sponsors to turn in completed petitions within 10 days after the voter signs the form, enact stepped-up fines for providing pre-filled petitions, and collect fines and impose criminal penalties for filling out missing information and copying information from petitions. Sponsors, such as Florida Decides Healthcare and Smart & Safe Florida, claimed that HB 1205 would make it nearly impossible to get amendment initiatives on the ballot. In court hearing, attorneys debate palatability of new restrictions on citizens' initiatives 'Here, aside from demonstrating they have suffered an injury in fact, Plaintiffs' record only goes so far to show that the process of gathering signed petitions has become more expensive and less efficient, not that these post-petition-gathering regulations have severely burdened Plaintiffs from speaking such that the challenged regulations must survive heightened scrutiny to pass constitutional muster,' Walker wrote in his order. However, Walker agreed to temporarily halt a provision for one of the plaintiffs of the law that expanded the definition of racketeering to cover irregularities and fraud regarding the petition collection process, writing that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and allowed for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The block only applies to Jordan Simmons, a project director of the campaign to expand Medicaid. 'Mr. Simmons faces irreparable injury because the law forces him to choose between curtailing his First Amendment rights to engage in core political speech via petition circulation or risk arrest and prosecution for a felony charge that could result in up to thirty years in prison,' Walker wrote. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Florida Decides Healthcare framed Walker's order as a win in a press release despite his denial of most of their claims. 'While the Court did not grant every part of our motion for preliminary relief, this is far from the final word,' wrote its Executive Director Mitch Emerson. 'This ruling was an early, extraordinary step in the legal process—and we are optimistic about what comes next, both for the remaining parts of HB 1205 that we're challenging and for the future of citizen-led democracy in Florida.' In a message to the group's coalition partners after Walker issued the order, Ana-Christina Acosta, the organizing director, wrote that petition collection operations will continue regardless of what happens with the litigation. So far, Florida Decides Healthcare has gathered 18,867 valid signatures and Smart & Safe Florida has gathered 379,345 valid signatures, enough to trigger the Florida Supreme Court's review of the amendment summary that could appear on the ballot, according to the Florida Division of Elections. Sponsors of citizen-led initiatives need to get approval from the Florida Supreme Court on the clarity of the amendment summary, gather 880,062 valid signatures from at least half of the state's 28 congressional districts to appear on the ballot, and get at least 60% approval to pass. While the majority of voters approved recreational marijuana and abortion-rights amendments, both failed to cross the 60% threshold after Gov. Ron DeSantis deployed state resources to campaign against the proposed measures. Lawmakers passed HB 1205 this year, citing a need to eradicate fraud in the petition-gathering process in light of a January report published by the state's Office of Election Crimes and Security claiming that more than 100 representatives of the group attempting enshrine abortion access in the Florida Constitution last year committed crimes related to gathering petitions. Floridians Protecting Freedom denied the claims in the report but ultimately dropped its challenge to the fine the state imposed. Come July 1, the state will also require people collecting signatures and petitions to register with the Secretary of State. Under HB 1205, people convicted of felonies who haven't had their voting rights restored, non-U.S. citizens, and non-Florida residents can't collect signatures or petitions. Plaintiffs filed a second motion asking Walker to temporarily block those provisions, with Smart & Safe Florida stating that it would face a fine of $23.7 million because 474 of its trained petition circulators aren't Florida residents. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
El Salvador deportees are entitled to due process, judge rules
A federal judge is ordering the Trump administration to give the hundreds of men deported to El Salvador in March under the Alien Enemies Act the right to challenge their detentions as unlawful. In a 69-page order issued Wednesday, Judge James Boasberg gave the Trump administration until June 11 to come up with a plan to allow the men currently detained at El Salvador's notorious CECOT mega-prison to practice their due process rights. "In short, the Government must facilitate the Class's ability to seek habeas relief to contest their removal under the Act. Exactly what such facilitation must entail will be determined in future proceedings," Boasberg wrote. MORE: Judge hears arguments over fate of CECOT detainees "Although the Court is mindful that such a remedy may implicate sensitive diplomatic or national-security concerns within the exclusive province of the Executive Branch, it also has a constitutional duty to provide a remedy that will 'make good the wrong done,'" he wrote. In what could portend the next chapter in a legal battle that has ensnared the Trump administration for nearly three months, Judge Boasberg reached the conclusion that the men -- regardless of their alleged criminal status -- deserve the right to challenge the government's claim. "Defendants plainly deprived these individuals of their right to seek habeas relief before their summary removal from the United States -- a right that need not itself be vindicated through a habeas petition. Perhaps the President lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act. Perhaps, moreover, Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs are gang members," Boasberg wrote. "But -- and this is the critical point -- there is simply no way to know for sure, as the CECOT Plaintiffs never had any opportunity to challenge the Government's say-so," he wrote. The Trump administration touched off a legal battle in March when it invoked the Alien Enemies Act -- an 18th century wartime authority used to remove noncitizens with little-to-no due process -- to deport two planeloads of alleged migrant gang members to El Salvador by arguing that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is a "hybrid criminal state" that is invading the United States. An official with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement acknowledged that "many" of the men deported on March 15 lack criminal records in the United States -- but said that "the lack of specific information about each individual actually highlights the risk they pose" and "demonstrates that they are terrorists with regard to whom we lack a complete profile."
