Federal court in Florida halts DeSantis-backed youth social media ban, cites free speech
A federal judge in Tallahassee has temporarily blocked part of a Florida law restricting minors' access to social media, finding it "likely unconstitutional."
Chief U.S. District Judge Mark E. Walker on June 3 said he recognized First Amendment protections to prevent the state from "substantially burdening speech unless (it) can show that doing so is necessary to achieve its significant interests."
The law (HB 3), passed in 2024, was supposed to go into effect this Jan. 1, but the state attorney general's office agreed not to enforce it until the judge ruled on a request for what's known as a preliminary injunction. Such orders are issued early in a lawsuit to temporarily stop something, like enforcement of a law, until the case is fully decided.
Initial Rulings: Florida social media minor restriction won't be immediately enforced against top platforms
The judge's 58-page order only blocks the portion of the state law that the associations who filed the lawsuit are focused on. It prohibits anyone under 16 from using some social media platforms, excluding 14- and 15-year-olds who obtain their parent's permission.
Walker also wrote that he "does not doubt that parents and legislators in the state have sincere concerns about the effects that social media use may have on youth, nor does it render parents or the state powerless to address those concerns."
NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association — trade associations representing social media platforms like Meta, Google, Youtube and Snapchat — first filed suit against the law in October, citing First Amendment concerns.
The law, which was signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, also required age verification to access pornographic websites in Florida, but the lawsuit is only focused on the social media provisions.
Governor's approval: DeSantis signs social media restrictions for kids, age verification for porn sites
'This ruling vindicates our argument that Florida's statute violates the First Amendment by blocking and restricting minors – and likely adults as well – from using certain (social media) websites to view lawful content," said Matt Schruers, president of Computer & Communications Industry Association in a statement.
Attorney General James Uthmeier's office said it disagrees with the judge's decision and plans to appeal, according to spokesperson Jeremy Redfern.
"Florida parents voted through their elected representatives for a law protecting kids from the harmful and sometimes lifelong tragic impacts of social media," Redfern said in a statement. "These platforms do not have a constitutional right to addict kids to their products."
In an interview with the USA TODAY Network – Florida, Schruers said the case on minors' use of social media platforms was an example of how lawmakers revisited a 2021 law on social media concerns.
That 2021 law is still pending a challenge in court by the same two trade associations. It was lauded by DeSantis at the time in reaction to social media platforms "shadowbanning" or outright suspending political candidates. (Shadowbanning is when a user's content on a platform is hidden or made less visible without their knowledge.)
The law also enabled Floridians to sue these social media platforms if they proved an unjustified ban.
The groups wrote at the time that Florida was free to criticize websites for their decisions on what to moderate or restrict, but argued that the First Amendment prevented them from overriding editorial judgments.
The case even made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sent the case back to federal court in Florida. That matter still has a jury trial scheduled for March 9.
Brought back to Florida: Both sides claim victory as US Supreme Court punts on Florida social media case
This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@gannett.com. On X: @stephanymatat.
This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: DeSantis-backed youth social media ban paused amid free speech issues
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court backs Catholic Charities' push to object to state taxes on religious grounds
The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for a Catholic Charities chapter in Wisconsin to secure an exemption from certain state taxes in a decision that could expand the type of religious entities entitled to tax breaks under the First Amendment's protections for religion. It was the latest in a series of decisions from the Supreme Court in recent years that have sided with religious groups on everything from public funding for sectarian schools to allowing coaches to offer private prayers on the field after high school football games. 'It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion,'' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for a unanimous court. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one. When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny,' she added. The Catholic Charities Bureau and four affiliate organizations had claimed that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment's religious protections by denying exemptions from the state's unemployment taxes. Churches already receive that exemption and so the question for the justices was, in essence, whether religiously affiliated entities that don't perform traditionally religious functions – such as services – should also qualify. The bureau describes itself as the 'social ministry arm of the Diocese of Superior' of Wisconsin and says that it carries out a 'wide variety of ministries for the elderly, the disabled, the poor,' and others. Wisconsin had argued that Catholic Charities had been participating in its unemployment insurance program without complaint since 1971. Forty-seven states and the federal government include exemptions from unemployment taxes for religious organizations similar to Wisconsin's, suggesting the court's decision could have an impact beyond the Badger State. The Trump administration sided with Catholic Charities, and it was concerned a broad ruling might affect the similar federal law. The Justice Department told the court it interprets federal law to exempt Catholic Charities and similar groups. Justice Clarence Thomas, a member of the court's conservative wing, wrote separately to argue in favor of a doctrine of 'church autonomy' that would further insulate religious institutions from taxes and government regulations. Thomas argued that the state court went too far by looking into how Catholic Charities was structured. 'The First Amendment's guarantee of church autonomy gives religious institutions the right to define their internal governance structures without state interference,' Thomas wrote. 'Perhaps the most important feature of today's ruling is that there was not a majority to take up the issue Justice Thomas wrote separately to underscore—whether regulations governing the tax-exempt status of religious organizations implicates, in Thomas's words, 'the First Amendment's guarantee of church autonomy,'' said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center. 'By deciding this case (unanimously) on narrower grounds, the Court saves the much more fraught question of the extent to which the First Amendment does require church autonomy—and what that would mean for all kinds of local, state, and federal regulations—for a future case.' The majority concluded that Wisconsin's law, as interpreted by the state's top court, discriminated between religions because the groups performing the charity work did not proselytize – even though the group's faith bars practitioners from doing so. 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination,' Sotomayor wrote for the court. 'Wisconsin's exemption, as interpreted by its Supreme Court, thus grants a denominational preference by explicitly differentiating between religions based on theological practices,' she wrote. Though technical, the case raised fundamental questions about the ability of courts to look behind the pulpit to assess the religiosity of certain organizations. Chief Justice John Roberts pressed the attorney representing Catholic Charities in March by asking whether a vegetarian restaurant might be entitled to an exemption from state taxes in the group's view if its owners claimed they were following a religious tenet against eating meat. Along those same lines, a question lurking behind the case was how it might apply to religiously affiliated hospitals. Approximately 787,000 employees work for six multibillion-dollar Catholic-affiliated health care systems, according to the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which filed a brief supporting the state. The Service Employees International Union, which also backs the state, estimated that more than a million workers are employed by religiously affiliated organizations. The conservative justices on the Supreme Court have in recent years blurred the line that once clearly separated church from state in a series of rulings siding with religious entities. They have done so in part on the theory that some government efforts intended to comply with the First Amendment's establishment clause have been overbroad and discriminated against religion. The court has expanded the circumstances under which taxpayer money may fund religious schools, for instance, it allowed a public high school football coach to pray on the 50-yard line and ruled that Boston could not block a Christian group from raising a flag at City Hall. But in this case, liberal Justice Elena Kagan signaled during the argument that she, too, had concerns with the idea that courts might take it upon themselves to second guess what sorts of activities might count as religious. It was clear in March that a majority of the justices were alarmed by the decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which concluded that the work Catholic Charities performed was 'wholly' secular. 'Such services can be provided by organizations of either religious or secular motivations, and the services provided would not differ in any sense,' the majority wrote. In a dissent, two Wisconsin justices said that the court's decision 'looks through a seemingly Protestant lens to deem works of charity worthy of the exemption only if accompanied by proselytizing – a combination forbidden by Catholicism, Judaism, and many other religions.' By choosing which religions may benefit from the break, the dissent said, the state court's interpretation violated the First Amendment. Catholic Charities argued that its employees would continue to have unemployment coverage but that it would be provided by a church-affiliated entity rather than the state. The group's opponents say employees in other workplaces may not be so lucky and have noted that the state cannot guarantee that those plans will pay out when employees lose their jobs. This story has been updated with additional details.
Epoch Times
30 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
Supreme Court Rules 9-0 Wisconsin Violated First Amendment by Denying Tax Exemption to Catholic Charity
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 5 ruled unanimously that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment by not granting a Catholic charity an exemption from paying unemployment tax. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the 9–0
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charity in tax case
The Supreme Court sided with a Catholic charity in a legal dispute with Wisconsin state authorities over unemployment benefit taxes. Justice Sonia Sotomayor's opinion for the court cited the First Amendment's mandate of 'government neutrality between religions.' As framed by the charity, the legal question in the case was whether a state violates the First Amendment by 'denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state's criteria for religious behavior.' Catholic Charities Bureau argued that its exclusion by the state from a religious exemption was unconstitutional 'in at least three ways,' including for allegedly being discriminatory. A divided Wisconsin Supreme Court sided with the state last year. The court's liberal majority concluded that the charity isn't 'operated primarily for religious purposes' under state law, over conservative dissent that said the majority 'rewrites the statute to deprive Catholic Charities of the tax exemption, rendering unto the state that which the law says belongs to the church.' Reversing the state court on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court deemed this case an easy one, reasoning that the state court failed to apply the rigorous constitutional analysis required. 'When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny,' Sotomayor wrote for the court. 'Because Wisconsin has transgressed that principle without the tailoring necessary to survive such scrutiny, the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion,' she wrote, referring to the process of a higher court sending a case back to a lower court. The March 31 oral argument reflected bipartisan concern among Supreme Court justices in the charity's favor. The state had argued that the group didn't engage in 'distinctively religious activities' and didn't assert 'a religious objection to contributing to unemployment insurance.' Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
