Supreme Court Upholds Texas Pornography Age-Verification Law
The Texas law, enacted in 2023, aims to limit minors' exposure to pornography but drew criticism from the adult entertainment industry and other critics who believe the requirement is a violation of freedom of speech. More than 20 other states have implemented similar laws in recent years.
The Supreme Court ruling will allow the controversial law to stay in place.
Writing for the majority in a 6-3 opinion that broke down along ideological lines, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said: 'The statute advances the state's important interest in shielding children from sexually explicit content.
'It is appropriately tailored because it permits users to verify their ages through the established methods of providing government-issued identification and sharing transactional data,' he continued.
A federal judge previously blocked the law a day before it was set to take effect, saying it 'deters adults' access to legal sexually explicit material, far beyond the interest of protecting minors.' An appeals court froze that decision in a divided ruling, however. The law 'rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in preventing minors' access to pornography,' the majority opinion read.
In April 2024, representatives of the adult entertainment industry asked the court to temporarily block the Texas law. In the appeal, put forward by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), they argued that 'The Act requires adults to comply with intrusive age verification measures that mandate the submission of personally identifying information over the Internet.'
This 'imposed substantial burdens' on adult access to free speech, the ACLU argued. The Supreme Court declined at the time to block the law while the appeal moved forward.
The organization filed another brief to the Supreme Court in September 2024 after it agreed to take up the case. he ACLU again argued that Americans had a First Amendment right to access explicit and pornographic content online, and that they 'should be allowed to exercise that right as they see fit, without having to worry about exposing their personal identifying information in the process,' in the words of ACLU Staff Attorney Vera Eidelman.
But the Supreme Court ruled that states hold the power to prevent minors from seeing speech or content that is deemed obscene.
'That power 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 such speech without first submitting proof of age,' the decision said.
In line with multiple other significant rulings issued by the court on Friday, the six conservative judges Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts comprised the majority.
The three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, all dissented.
Other major court rulings issued on Friday, the last opinion day of the Supreme Court term, included a decision limiting lower courts' ability to block President Donald Trump's executive order curbing birthright citizenship.
Another ruling backed the right of parents to opt their elementary-school children out of lessons that engage with books featuring LGBTQ+ characters or topics.
In both cases, the justices were split along ideological lines.
Several conservative justices joined the court's liberals in another anticipated ruling related to a key provision of the Affordable Care Act, however. The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to a taskforce that recommends preventive health care that insurers are required to cover at no extra cost for users under the sweeping health care law.
Had the court found the task force unconstitutional, millions of Americans would have been at risk of having to pay out of pocket for services recommended by the task force to prevent a wide range of conditions, including HIV, cancer, and diabetes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump's approval rating dips in new poll: What recent surveys show
A new poll puts President Donald Trump's approval rating near record lows, noting an "erosion of support" among one of the president's most reliable groups of supporters: men. The University of Massachusetts Amherst survey released Monday, Aug. 4, found public support for the Republican leader has dropped six percentage points since its April poll, giving Trump a meager 38% approval rating. With a corresponding 58% of poll respondents disapproving of his job performance, the figures mark one of the lowest ratings seen in recent months − and follow a string of major national polls with similarly low approval ratings. A historical analysis by Gallup shows Trump's approval ratings in the first July of both of his terms are lower than those of any other modern president. Pope Leo XIV: Poll finds Americans view new pope more favorably than all of these prominent figures 'Trump's approval ratings, already historically low for a newly elected president, continue to sink with close to 6-in-10 Americans (58%) expressing disapproval of the job that Trump is doing in office," the UMass Amherst poll's director, Tatishe Nteta, said in an Aug. 4 press release. "While Trump remains a popular figure among Republicans and conservatives, Trump's time in office is viewed more negatively across genders, generations, classes and races, with majorities of each of these groups disapproving of Trump's performance." The poll, conducted in partnership with YouGov July 25-30, interviewed 1,000 respondents nationally. The margin of error is 3.5%. What is President Trump's approval rating? Aggregations of recent approval polling from The New York Times and RealClearPolitics place Trump's approval between 44% and 45.8%, respectively, with a 53% and 51.4% disapproval as of Aug. 6. The UMass Amherst poll shows a significantly lower approval mark compared to these averages. The survey found Trump's net approval rating dropped to -20 as he surpasses the six-month mark of his second term in office, with discontent focused especially on his handling of immigration, tariffs, inflation and the Jeffrey Epstein crisis. More Trump news: Poll shows most Americans disapprove of Epstein approach. Here's how many. Opinions on Trump's approach to inflation and tariffs jockeyed for the lowest ratings, both collecting a 31% approval, followed by 32% approving his stance on civil rights. Approval of his stance on immigration fell nine points among respondents compared to the April survey. The Epstein controversy continues to stay top of mind for many Americans, a topic that has weighed Trump down in recent polls. Among the participants in the UMass Amherst poll, more than three-fourths said they have "read, seen or heard about Jeffrey Epstein" either some or a lot, and 70% said they believe the president is handling the issue either "not too well" or "not well at all." Nearly two-thirds (63%) believe his administration is hiding information about Epstein. New Trump poll shows drop in support among men In April, men were a significant source of support for the president's then-44% approval rating, with 48% of men telling pollsters they approved of Trump's performance. Three months later, that number has dropped by nearly 10 points, with 39% of men expressing approval of the president in July − only one point higher than his overall approval rating. Among women, support is even lower at 35%, and has also seen a drop since April, by four percentage points. Joe Rogan: Trump admin is 'trying to gaslight you' over Epstein scandal 'In addition to losing support among men, Trump has seen approval for his presidency crumble among political independents, a critical swing constituency,' said Jesse Rhodes, professor of political science at UMass Amherst and a co-director of the poll, in a news release. 'While 31% of independents approved of his presidency in April, that number is now down 10 percentage points to 21%." The UMass Amherst poll results echo similarly low approval polling by Gallup, which marked the lowest approval rating yet of his second term, at 37% as of July 25, and a Reuters/Ipsos poll released July 30 that gave him a 40% approval. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.
New York Post
28 minutes ago
- New York Post
Back in your lane, bureaucrats: ‘Endangerment' rollback restores sense to EPA
When Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, climate change wasn't on anyone's mind. Yet under an Obama-era decision known as the 'Endangerment Finding,' the Environmental Protection Agency has claimed authority under the act to micromanage large parts of the American economy in the name of combating global warming. President Donald Trump's proposal to reverse the finding returns the Clean Air Act to its original purpose, marking the end of a failed effort to control the climate through executive fiat. The Endangerment Finding stemmed from a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required the EPA to determine whether carbon dioxide qualified as a dangerous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts warned that the decision 'ignores the complexities' of addressing global warming through the statute — but suggested its effects 'may be more symbolic than anything else.' He couldn't have been more wrong. In his first year in office, President Barack Obama sought to push a bipartisan climate bill through Congress — but when lawmakers failed to act on his terms, he turned to executive authority. In 2009, Obama's EPA responded to the high court's decision and declared that six greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, endanger public health and welfare — and therefore required regulation. Unfortunately, the structure of the Clean Air Act is not conducive to regulating CO2, because it's designed to regulate industry. Yet CO2 is not just emitted by factories and cars but by every human, frog, parakeet and muskrat, among other animals. The act required federal permits for any source that emitted more than 100 tons per year of an air pollutant. By this measure, some families would need permits just to maintain their households under the Endangerment Finding. Realizing that the law could sweep up hundreds of thousands of stores, apartments, hotels and other small establishments, the agency said it would regulate only sites emitting more than 100,000 tons of CO2 — a number it picked out of thin air. The EPA's attempts to use the act to regulate emissions unleashed endless litigation. In 2014, the Supreme Court overturned the 100,000-ton permit standard, which two justices called 'patently unreasonable.' In 2022, the Supreme Court said that the EPA's mandate to shut down a substantial part of the nation's coal-fired power plants and substitute them with gas and renewables also couldn't be squared with the act. One sticking point was that the Clean Air Act focused on regulating emissions through technological additions to cars and factories, such as smokestack scrubbers. But unlike other pollutants, there's no easy way to capture greenhouse gases: If you burn fossil fuels, the CO2 must go somewhere, and that generally means into the atmosphere. The only way to control most greenhouse gases is to mandate less use of fossil-fuel-derived energy. Such mandates were never the purpose or intention of the Clean Air Act. Absurd actions resulted. Cars and trucks are some of the main emitters of CO2, and they were the focus of the EPA's original finding. But no technologies exist to eliminate CO2 from gas-powered vehicles, so the EPA simply imposed stricter gas-mileage standards — even though Congress had already established a separate Transportation Department program to regulate fuel economy. The Biden administration went further, issuing rules under the finding that would require about two-thirds of new cars and trucks to be electric by 2032, an attempt to overhaul the entire American automobile fleet. The estimated costs surpassed $1 trillion, making them among the most expensive regulatory actions in history. And because the government also offered separate subsidies for electric vehicle purchases, the regulations stood to add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit — again, without any congressional approval. These regulatory contortions reveal the folly of using questionable statutory language, rather than clear congressional action, to make major decisions that reshape American society. Those who view climate change as an existential threat have a duty to persuade the public of that claim. If addressing climate change truly requires making sweeping changes to how we live, then advocates must build a broad-based coalition to pass laws mandating those changes — not bypass the democratic process through executive fiat. Trump's proposal to repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding, detailed in over 300 pages by the EPA last week, will put a stop to regulations that swelled the deficit, raised prices and hurt consumers. It will also restore Congress' original understanding of the Clean Air Act, stop a flood of ineffective executive mandates — and make overreaching bureaucrats get back in their lane. Judge Glock is the director of research and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Adapted from City Journal.
Chicago Tribune
28 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Federal lawsuit filed by former convention bureau chief dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
The city of Hammond, its mayor and his podcast are no longer involved in a lawsuit filed by the South Shore Convention and Visitors Authority's former president and CEO after a federal judge dismissed them from it last week. U.S. District Judge Damon Leichty, who took over the case from retired Judge Joe Van Bokkelen earlier this year, wrote in a July 31 order that once Van Bokkelen severed the city, Mayor Tom McDermott Jr. and his 'Left of Center' podcast from the suit Speros Batistatos filed against the SSCVA in February, the federal question no longer applies. As such, 'The court must dismiss an action 'at any time' it determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction,' he wrote. 'When the action contains no claims over which the court has federal question jurisdiction, there is nothing to which supplemental jurisdiction can attach,' despite it having been attached to the original case that does have a federal question, Leichty wrote in the five-page order. '(S)upplemental jurisdiction may only be invoked when the district court has a hook of original jurisdiction on which to hang it.' Because the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, Batistatos can refile it at the state level, the order reads. As to whether he will, Batistatos deferred comment to his attorney, Sandra Blevins of Indianapolis; Blevins didn't respond to a request for comment by deadline. McDermott, however, on Wednesday encouraged Batistatos to file the suit at the state level because he believes the state court will be more sympathetic to his First Amendment rights. 'All along, we didn't think our part of the suit would go anywhere, but we still filed an anti-SLAPP suit against him,' McDermott said. 'I don't think Speros would be dumb enough to refile, but if he does, the state court is much friendlier to defendants, and we'll simply refile the anti-SLAPP. 'The fact that this took so long is frustrating, but justice does prevail.' Anti-SLAPP laws 'prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate people who are exercising their First Amendment rights,' according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press's website. Batistatos sued the SSCVA in August 2022 – a month after it fired him — alleging it violated the law in the handling of his contract renegotiations due to his age — 58 at the time — as well as misspent federal Payroll Protection Plan funds in violation of the CARES Act, a claim the board disputes, the Post-Tribune previously reported. His suit named the SSCVA as well as CVA Board President Andy Qunell and board members Matt Schuffert, Hard Rock Casino general manager; local restaurateur Brent Brashier; Tom Dabertin; and local real estate agent Matt Maloney. Notices of intent to sue were also sent to McDermott and attorney Kevin Smith for $2.5 million for defamation for their actions around the time Batistatos was relieved of his duties by the board. In the notice sent to McDermott, Batistatos alleged McDermott conspired and made a backdoor deal with the SSCVA board to dismiss a pending lawsuit against the SSCVA if Payroll Protection Plan funds were given out to aid his and other municipalities. He also said McDermott 'stated he would dismiss the lawsuit if Mr. Batistatos were terminated from his position at the SSCVA,' as well as making other 'numerous defamatory statements' against Batistatos on McDermott's podcast with Kevin Smith entitled Left of Center Podcast, according to the document. In August 2023, Van Bokkelen dismissed claims against Smith and Left of Center Media, LLC, which produces McDermott's podcast, as well as axed Batistatos's claim of 'tortious interference' with 'contractual and business relationships' against McDermott and the city of Hammond. But on June 18, Van Bokkelen filed three motions: one denying the dismissal of Batistatos's lawsuit and one removing Thomas McDermott in his official capacity as mayor from it, although McDermott as himself and the city of Hammond would remain on the suit, the Post-Tribune previously reported. The third motion allowed Batistatos to refile his suit against McDermott's Left of Center Media LLC and Left of Center podcast, court documents said.
