Supreme Court expected to rule on Texas porn age verification law
WASHINGTON (KXAN) – The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the coming days on whether Texas can require pornographic websites to verify users' ages, a case that could reshape online speech protections and affect similar laws in more than 20 states.
The justices heard arguments in January over Texas House Bill 1181, which requires websites with content 'harmful to minors' to check government-issued IDs before allowing access. The law carries fines up to $10,000 per violation, rising to $250,000 if minors are involved.
At the heart of Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is a fundamental constitutional question: What legal standard should courts use when evaluating laws that restrict adults' access to protected speech in the name of protecting children?
The adult entertainment industry argues the law violates the First Amendment by burdening adults' access to legal content and eliminating their anonymity online. Texas counters that age verification is a reasonable way to protect minors, similar to laws preventing alcohol sales to children.
The case has already had real-world impact. Pornhub, one of the world's most popular adult sites, blocked Texas users rather than comply with the identification requirements.
A federal judge initially blocked the law, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the age verification portion to take effect. The appeals court applied 'rational basis review,' the most lenient constitutional standard, reasoning that laws protecting children need only be reasonable.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton defended the law as protecting children. 'We are not going to lose,' Paxton told reporters in January. 'We are going to have the right to enforce this.'
The Free Speech Coalition, a trade association for the adult industry, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that courts should apply 'strict scrutiny' — the most demanding standard — because the law restricts content-based speech.
The group points to the court's 2004 decision in Ashcroft v. ACLU, where justices struck down a federal law requiring age verification for websites with content 'harmful to children.'
The decision will affect similar age verification laws enacted in states including Louisiana, Utah, Virginia and Arkansas. By one count, 23 states passed such measures in 2023 and 2024.
Civil liberties groups warn the laws expose adults to privacy risks and could set precedent for broader internet restrictions. Child safety advocates support the measures as necessary protections in the digital age.
The Court will be issuing opinions throughout the month of June, before their summer recess. The next term for the Supreme Court starts in October.
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
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Gov. Gavin Newsom: Trump is 'not a monarch, he is not a king, and he should stop acting like one'
In a 36-page decision, Breyer wrote that Trump's actions 'were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.' Breyer added that he was 'troubled by the implication' inherent in the Trump administration's argument that 'protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion.' U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco granted the state of California's request for a temporary restraining order Thursday evening, but also delayed enforcement of the order until noon Friday, giving the Trump administration time to file an appeal with the U.S. 9th Circuit. In a 36-page decision, Breyer wrote that Trump's actions 'were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.' Breyer added that he was 'troubled by the implication' inherent in the Trump administration's argument that 'protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Las Vegas ICE protests: First Amendment right or breaking the law?
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — First Amendment attorney Marc Randazza explained the boundary of free speech and unlawful activity to 8 News Now after Wednesday night's protest. RELATED: 94 arrested, 4 officers injured during Las Vegas protest He said the First Amendment protects your freedom to stand on the sidewalk, chant, and hold signs — but it does not make you innocent of crimes committed while doing so. 'If you're doing something that would be illegal if you weren't protesting, it doesn't magically become legal because you are a protester,' Randazza said. When it comes to what happened Wednesday night, he said Metro Police made the right call after protestors began to throw rocks and block roads. 'Once a protest descends to people blocking the roads, if the police want to declare it unlawful to clear the streets, you know, even as a staunch First Amendment advocate, that does not rub me the wrong way,' he said. Randazza said a First Amendment violation happens when police arrest protestors who are acting lawfully, and he hasn't seen many violations in Las Vegas. 'Metro is pretty good with that, but there's a history in Las Vegas, a tolerance, for free speech activities,' Randazza said. He supports protests regardless of their message. 'I don't care if you're pro-ICE or anti-ICE. Go out there and do it,' Randazza said. 'But do it with your words, do it with signs, do it with chants, if you like. But the moment you start to block traffic, I hope somebody runs you over, and I have no problem with that.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Judge grants California's request for a temporary restraining order against Trump troop deployment
A federal judge on Thursday granted a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump's deployment of the California National Guard in Los Angeles. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer deemed Trump's actions 'illegal' and wrote that he 'must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.' Breyer, sitting in California, issued the order after holding a hearing earlier Thursday, but he put his order on hold until noon Friday. The Trump administration has already filed a notice that it's appealing his order to the federal appeals court that covers California. The appeal could quickly reach the Supreme Court. Breyer said his task at this early stage in the litigation was to determine whether the president followed proper procedures. 'He did not,' wrote Breyer (who is the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer). 'His actions were illegal,' the judge wrote, 'both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.' Breyer wrote that it's 'well-established that the police power is one of the quintessential powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.' State officials had argued in an urgent motion Tuesday that the Trump administration's use of the military and the federalized National Guard for general law enforcement activities 'creates imminent harm to State Sovereignty, deprives the State of vital resources, escalates tensions and promotes (rather than quells) civil unrest.' California officials emphasized that the police — not the military — enforce the law in the United States. They criticized the federal government for seeking to bring the military and a 'warrior culture' to American cities and towns. 'Now, they have turned their sights on California with devastating consequences, setting a roadmap to follow across the country,' they wrote in their motion for a temporary restraining order. California officials said the protests have largely been peaceful and that when they haven't been, local and state law enforcement have been able to handle it. The Trump administration argued that granting a restraining order 'would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief's military directives' and that it would be 'unprecedented' and 'dangerous.' California's restraining order motion Tuesday followed its initial complaint, filed Monday in the same case, against Trump's invocation of the military authority Saturday. The state said Trump 'used a protest that local authorities had under control to make another unprecedented power grab, this time at the cost of the sovereignty of the State of California and in disregard of the authority and role of the Governor as commander-in-chief of the State's National Guard.' 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
