Trade group asks Supreme Court to limit Mississippi's social media law

The Hill

23-07-2025

An internet trade group asked the Supreme Court Wednesday to block Mississippi from enforcing its age-verification law against nine major social media platforms.
NetChoice asked the justices for an emergency intervention after the 5 th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week without explanation lifted a block that had protected platforms like Facebook and Instagram from the new requirements.
'In a one-sentence order, the Fifth Circuit upended the First Amendment rights of Mississippi citizens seeking to access fully protected speech across social media websites,' NetChoice wrote.
The existing block had prevented Mississippi from enforcing the law against nine NetChoice members covered by the law: Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, X, Snapchat, Reddit, Pinterest, Nextdoor and Dreamwitdth.
Justice Samuel Alito, who by default handles emergency requests arising from the 5 th Circuit, ordered Mississippi to respond within a week. Alito could then act on the request alone or refer it to the full court for a vote.
Mississippi's law requires social media companies to verify users' age and require minors to have express consent from a parent or guardian to use the platform. Covered websites must also work to mitigate minors' exposure to harmful material, and violations carry a $10,000 fine.
It was originally set to go into effect on July 1, 2024, the same day the Supreme Court decided NetChoice's First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws that regulate social media companies over accusations of political censorship.
The Florida and Texas disputes involve what is known as a facial challenge, meaning NetChoice argues the laws are unconstitutional across the board. The Supreme Court's decision sent the cases back to lower courts with guidance for how to analyze the laws.
In Mississippi, however, the judge's most recent injunction did not block the state's law facially. An appointee of the younger former President Bush, U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden only blocked the state's law as applied to NetChoice's members, which involves a different First Amendment analysis.
NetChoice argued the 5 th Circuit's lack of explanation in lifting the judge's order is sufficient reason on its own for the Supreme Court to intervene. And regardless, the trade group says the block is needed to protect free speech as the litigation progresses.
'Yet, in stark contrast to the two extensively reasoned district court opinions in this case, the Fifth Circuit's order (entered less than an hour after Respondent submitted a reply brief) explains nothing. This is particularly troubling in the context of a decision with sudden and sweeping implications for accessing fully protected speech,' NetChoice wrote in the application.