Supreme Court upholds Texas adult website age-verification law
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Texas law aimed at restricting young people's access to pornographic content online.
The justices in a 6-3 vote rejected a challenge brought by a pornography interest group called the Free Speech Coalition that said the measure violates the free speech rights of adults who want to access the content.
The law requires users of websites that host adult content to verify their age before they can access it. This requires the operator to view a government-issued identification, such as a driver's license.
The law "simply requires established verification methods already in use by pornographic sites and other industries," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority.
It also "advances the state's important interest in shielding children from sexually explicit material," he added.
The challengers argued the law violates the Constitution's First Amendment because it places a 'content-based burden' on adults' access to speech.
They cited a 2004 Supreme Court ruling that found a federal law also aimed at restricting access to pornography, called the Child Online Protection Act, was most likely unconstitutional.
A federal judge had ruled that the provision at issue was problematic because it did not merely restrict access to minors.
The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then ruled for Texas and refused to put its ruling on hold pending further review.
As a result of that ruling, some online pornography platforms, including Pornhub, prevented people in Texas from accessing their sites out of concern about the provision's going into effect.
The Supreme Court in April 2024 declined to block the law while the case continued.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Abstruse yet monumental: the scope and impact of the US supreme court's birthright citizenship ruling
The US supreme court opinion on Friday in a case challenging Donald Trump's attempt to unilaterally end the country's longstanding tradition of birthright citizenship doesn't actually rule on the constitutionality of the president's order. That question – of whether the president can do away with a right guaranteed by the the fourteenth amendment to the US constitution – is still being debated in the lower courts. Instead, the supreme court focused on the question of whether individual district court judges could block federal policies nationwide. The decision is both abstruse and monumental, experts say. It doesn't immediately change anything about how citizenship is granted in the US, and it profoundly shifts the ways in which the federal courts work. To help understand the implications of the ruling, the Guardian spoke with Efrén Olivares, vice-president of litigation and legal strategy at the National Immigration Law Center, a non-profit advocacy group. The interview has been edited for length and clarity. First, what exactly does the supreme court's ruling mean, today, for immigrants across the US who are expecting parents? The immediate impact is null. The supreme court explicitly said for the next 30 days, the executive order ending birthright citizenship will not go into effect. The right to citizenship by birth in the United States continues. Anyone born today, tomorrow, next week, two weeks from now in the US will be a citizen. We can anticipate that before those 30 days run out, there will be another ruling from one of the trial courts or district courts that will shed more light on this issue long-term. Does this mean that states and immigrant rights' groups that have sued over Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors will have to change how they are challenging the policy? There were three lawsuits filed on behalf of individuals and organizations against this executive order. All three were seeking to enjoin – which means stop – the enforcement of this executive order. Because it's an executive order of national scope, the rulings of the lower courts in these cases were national in scope, right? Then, the supreme court chimed in and said that is inappropriate for a court to block a policy nationwide, and that a court's ruling should only apply to the plaintiffs or parties right in front of them. So now, those challenging the order may move to seek a class certification, essentially to pursue a class-action lawsuit. Already, the immigration aid groups Casa and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project have filed an amended complaint seeking class-action relief in their challenge to Trump's birthright citizenship order. Class-action litigation has existed for years, and what that means is that now the party in front of the court is asking the court to rule not just on its own behalf, but also on behalf of everyone else similarly situated. The class-action suits are most commonly used in cases where people are seeking monetary relief – for example, in instances where there are defects in car manufacturing. In that type of case, anyone who bought this type of car between X and Y dates would be entitled to compensation. The supreme court ruling could now make class-action litigation much more common. How might the supreme court's ruling here impact other immigration cases? Because up to this point, federal judges' authority to freeze policies across the US – with so-called 'nationwide injunctions' – has served as a powerful check on executive power. It has been used to block policies instituted by both Democratic and Republican administrations. What is ironic is that the supreme court has been perfectly fine with nationwide injunctions in the past. For example, justices enjoined the Biden administration's cancellation of student loans. And they had no problem with a nationwide injunction in that case. This latest ruling on injunctions will affect any case that challenges a policy with national implications. We are particularly tracking the deployment of federal or military troops to do immigration enforcement, and continuation of unlawful, discriminatory enforcement of immigration laws on the basis of race. But this ruling will impact lots of cases. It can be immigration policy, it can be an environmental policy, it can be a voting rights policy – all of those things are regulated at the federal level. So now, if federal policy is challenged, unless it is challenged in a nationwide class-action lawsuit, a lower court's ruling would only apply in the state or states where that policy is challenged? Yes, we may have a patchwork of rulings that vary depending on what state you live in. One of the challenges to the birthright citizenship order, for example, was brought by individuals and organizations in Maryland, DC and Massachusetts. If that case is successful, but you live in Nebraska or Wisconsin or Texas, you may not have the same rights to citizenship as if you are in Maryland, DC or Massachusetts. That is totally inconsistent with our system of law for 250 years. In the supreme court's majority opinion, justice Amy Coney Barrett even alluded to the infeasibility of citizenship rules being different in different states. She summarizes the plaintiffs' argument that ''patchwork injunction' would prove unworkable, because it would require [the states] to track and verify the immigration status of the parents of every child, along with the birth state of every child for whom they provide certain federally funded benefits'. And she ultimately writes that courts can issue injunctions to ensure that a victorious plaintiff receives 'complete relief'. What exactly does that mean? I think they're trying to leave the door open for nationwide injunctions to be OK in certain contexts, and it's unclear what those contexts will be. If you have a national, nationwide class action, a nationwide injunction is the only way to give relief to everyone in the class. Still, in practice, I am worried that the language of the ruling lends itself to inconsistent applications based on the court's or the judge's political ideologies.
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
Huge crowds mourn Iranian military chiefs and scientists killed in strikes
The caskets of Guard's chief General Hossein Salami, the head of the Guard's ballistic missile programme, General Amir Ali Hajizadeh and others were driven on trucks along the capital's Azadi Street as people in the crowds chanted 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel'. Generals Salami and Hajizadeh were both killed on the first day of the war, June 13, as Israel launched an attack it said was meant to destroy Iran's nuclear programme, specifically targeting military commanders, scientists and nuclear facilities. Mourners during the funeral ceremony in Islamic Revolution Square in Tehran (Vahid Salemi/AP) State media reported more than a million people turned out for the funeral procession, which was impossible to independently confirm, but the dense crowd packed the main Tehran thoroughfare along the entire 4.5km (nearly three-mile) route. There was no immediate sign of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in the state broadcast of the funeral. The Ayatollah, who has not made a public appearance since before the outbreak of the war, has in past funerals held prayers for fallen commanders over their caskets before the open ceremonies, later aired on state television. Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi was on hand, and state television reported that General Esmail Qaani, who heads the foreign wing of the Revolutionary Guard, the Quds Force, and General Ali Shamkhani were also among the mourners. Gen Shamkhani, an adviser to Ayatollah Khamenei who was wounded in the first round of Israel's attack, was shown in a civilian suit leaning on a cane in an image distributed on state television's Telegram channel. A mourner holds a poster of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, during the funerals in Tehran (Vahid Salemi/AP) Iran's Revolutionary Guard was created after its 1979 Islamic Revolution. Since it was established, it has evolved from a paramilitary, domestic security force to a transnational force that has come to the aid of Tehran's allies in the Middle East, from Syria and Lebanon to Iraq. It operates in parallel to the country's existing armed forces and controls Iran's arsenal of ballistic missiles, which it has used to attack Israel twice during the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. Over 12 days before a ceasefire was declared on Tuesday, Israel claimed it killed around 30 Iranian commanders and 11 nuclear scientists, while hitting eight nuclear-related facilities and more than 720 military infrastructure sites. More than 1,000 people were killed, including at least 417 civilians, according to the Washington-based Human Rights Activists group. Iran fired more than 550 ballistic missiles at Israel, most of which were intercepted, but those that got through caused damage in many areas and killed 28 people. Saturday's ceremonies were the first public funerals for top commanders since the ceasefire, and Iranian state television reported that they were for 60 people in total, including four women and four children. Authorities closed government offices to allow public servants to attend the ceremonies. Many in the crowd expressed feelings of anger and defiance. 'This is not a ceasefire, this is just a pause,' said Ahmad Mousapoor, 43, waving an Iranian flag. 'Whatever they do, we will definitely give a crushing response.' People burn a US flag as they take part in the funeral ceremony (Vahid Salemi/AP) State media published images of an open grave plot at Tehran's Behesht-e-Zahra cemetery where army chief of staff, General Mohammad Bagheri, who was killed on the first day of the war, was to be buried beside his brother, a Guards commander killed during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war. Many of the others were to be buried in their home towns. The Iranian judiciary's Mizan news agency confirmed that the top prosecutor at the notorious Evin prison had been killed in an Israeli strike on Monday. It reported that Ali Ghanaatkar, whose prosecution of dissidents led to widespread criticism by human rights groups, would be buried at a shrine in Qom. Iran has always insisted its nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes. But Israel views it as an existential threat and said its military campaign was necessary to prevent Iran from building an atomic weapon. Ayatollah Khamenei's last public appearance was on June 11, two days before hostilities with Israel broke out, when he met Iranian parliamentarians. On Thursday, however, he released a pre-recorded video, in his first message since the end of the war, filled with warnings and threats directed toward the United States and Israel, the Islamic Republic's longtime adversaries. The 86-year-old downplayed US strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites as having not achieved 'anything significant', and claimed victory over Israel. The head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency, Rafael Grossi, has characterised the damage done by American bunker-buster bombs to Iran's Fordo nuclear site, which was built into a mountain, as 'very, very, very considerable'. The complexity and tenacity of Iranians is famously known in our magnificent carpets, woven through countless hours of hard work and patience. But as a people, our basic premise is very simple and straightforward: we know our worth, value our independence, and never allow anyone… — Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) June 27, 2025 US President Donald Trump has said that he expects Iran to open itself to international inspection to verify it does not restart its nuclear programme, and White House officials have said they expect to restart talks soon with Iran, though nothing has been scheduled. Iran's parliament has voted to suspend collaboration with Mr Grossi's International Atomic Energy Agency for the time being. In a post on X on Saturday, Mr Araghchi indicated that Iran might be open to talks, but criticised Mr Trump's remarks from Friday in which the president scoffed at a warning from Ayatollah Khamenei against further US attacks, saying Iran 'got beat to hell'. 'If President Trump is genuine about wanting a deal, he should put aside the disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards Iran's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei and stop hurting his millions of heartfelt followers,' Mr Araghchi wrote.
Leader Live
2 hours ago
- Leader Live
Huge crowds mourn Iranian military chiefs and scientists killed in strikes
The caskets of Guard's chief General Hossein Salami, the head of the Guard's ballistic missile programme, General Amir Ali Hajizadeh and others were driven on trucks along the capital's Azadi Street as people in the crowds chanted 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel'. Generals Salami and Hajizadeh were both killed on the first day of the war, June 13, as Israel launched an attack it said was meant to destroy Iran's nuclear programme, specifically targeting military commanders, scientists and nuclear facilities. State media reported more than a million people turned out for the funeral procession, which was impossible to independently confirm, but the dense crowd packed the main Tehran thoroughfare along the entire 4.5km (nearly three-mile) route. There was no immediate sign of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in the state broadcast of the funeral. The Ayatollah, who has not made a public appearance since before the outbreak of the war, has in past funerals held prayers for fallen commanders over their caskets before the open ceremonies, later aired on state television. Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi was on hand, and state television reported that General Esmail Qaani, who heads the foreign wing of the Revolutionary Guard, the Quds Force, and General Ali Shamkhani were also among the mourners. Gen Shamkhani, an adviser to Ayatollah Khamenei who was wounded in the first round of Israel's attack, was shown in a civilian suit leaning on a cane in an image distributed on state television's Telegram channel. Iran's Revolutionary Guard was created after its 1979 Islamic Revolution. Since it was established, it has evolved from a paramilitary, domestic security force to a transnational force that has come to the aid of Tehran's allies in the Middle East, from Syria and Lebanon to Iraq. It operates in parallel to the country's existing armed forces and controls Iran's arsenal of ballistic missiles, which it has used to attack Israel twice during the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. Over 12 days before a ceasefire was declared on Tuesday, Israel claimed it killed around 30 Iranian commanders and 11 nuclear scientists, while hitting eight nuclear-related facilities and more than 720 military infrastructure sites. More than 1,000 people were killed, including at least 417 civilians, according to the Washington-based Human Rights Activists group. Iran fired more than 550 ballistic missiles at Israel, most of which were intercepted, but those that got through caused damage in many areas and killed 28 people. Saturday's ceremonies were the first public funerals for top commanders since the ceasefire, and Iranian state television reported that they were for 60 people in total, including four women and four children. Authorities closed government offices to allow public servants to attend the ceremonies. Many in the crowd expressed feelings of anger and defiance. 'This is not a ceasefire, this is just a pause,' said Ahmad Mousapoor, 43, waving an Iranian flag. 'Whatever they do, we will definitely give a crushing response.' State media published images of an open grave plot at Tehran's Behesht-e-Zahra cemetery where army chief of staff, General Mohammad Bagheri, who was killed on the first day of the war, was to be buried beside his brother, a Guards commander killed during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war. Many of the others were to be buried in their home towns. The Iranian judiciary's Mizan news agency confirmed that the top prosecutor at the notorious Evin prison had been killed in an Israeli strike on Monday. It reported that Ali Ghanaatkar, whose prosecution of dissidents led to widespread criticism by human rights groups, would be buried at a shrine in Qom. Iran has always insisted its nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes. But Israel views it as an existential threat and said its military campaign was necessary to prevent Iran from building an atomic weapon. Ayatollah Khamenei's last public appearance was on June 11, two days before hostilities with Israel broke out, when he met Iranian parliamentarians. On Thursday, however, he released a pre-recorded video, in his first message since the end of the war, filled with warnings and threats directed toward the United States and Israel, the Islamic Republic's longtime adversaries. The 86-year-old downplayed US strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites as having not achieved 'anything significant', and claimed victory over Israel. The head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency, Rafael Grossi, has characterised the damage done by American bunker-buster bombs to Iran's Fordo nuclear site, which was built into a mountain, as 'very, very, very considerable'.
