On Wednesday, an internet trade group made a request to the Supreme Court, aiming to prevent Mississippi from enforcing specific laws affecting nine major social media platforms.
NetChoice sought this urgent judicial intervention after the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted protections for platforms like Facebook and Instagram last week, which had been shielding them from new regulations.
In their statement, NetChoice argued, “In a one-sentence order, the Fifth Circuit overturned the First Amendment rights of Mississippi citizens to access fully protected speech across social media websites.”
The previous injunction had stopped Mississippi from enforcing its law against participating platforms, which include Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, X, Snapchat, Reddit, Pinterest, Nextdoor, and Dreamwidth.
Judge Samuel Alito is tasked with emergency requests stemming from the Fifth Circuit cases, and he has ordered Mississippi to respond within a week. He has the option to make a decision independently or refer it to the entire court for a vote.
The Mississippi law mandates that social media companies verify users’ ages and secure explicit consent from parents or guardians for minors using the platforms. Additionally, the law compels these websites to work on reducing minors’ exposure to harmful content, with penalties of up to $10,000 for non-compliance.
This law was originally set to take effect on July 1, 2024, coinciding with the Supreme Court’s review of NetChoice’s First Amendment challenge against similar laws in Florida and Texas concerning claims of political bias in content moderation.
The legal dispute involving Florida and Texas is characterized by what are known as facial challenges, where NetChoice argues the laws are fundamentally unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s ruling returned a case to lower courts, providing guidance on how to assess the relevant legislation.
However, in Mississippi, the latest injunction did not halt the state’s law from moving forward. A U.S. District Judge appointed by former President Bush, Halil Souriman Ozelden, previously blocked the enforcement of the law against NetChoice members.
NetChoice contended that the lack of clarification from the Fifth Circuit regarding the judge’s lifted order provides enough grounds for the Supreme Court to take action. They assert that, as the legal proceedings move forward, the continued injunction is essential to safeguarding free speech.
“However, in this case, the Fifth Circuit order (issued shortly after the respondent submitted a reply brief) does not provide any explanation, which starkly contrasts with the detailed opinions from the district court,” they noted.
Efforts to reach the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office for comments have been underway.
