114.8.30(六) Samedi 30 août 2025
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to
block a Mississippi law barring minors from using social media sites including
Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Snapchat, YouTube and X without their parents’ consent.
The court’s brief order was unsigned and
gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications.
The order was not the last word in the case, which will proceed in a federal
appeals court and may again reach the justices.
The challenged law, enacted last year,
seeks to limit minors’ access to sites allowing them “to socially interact with
others users.” Lawmakers said they sought to protect children from sex
trafficking, sexual abuse, violence, grooming and harassment. More generally,
they said, they were concerned about the harmful effects of social media use on
young people.
The law does not apply to sites mainly
devoted to news, sports, commerce or video games. It also exempts email and
direct messages.
It requires social media sites to verify
users’ ages and to block those younger than 18 unless they have their parents’
permission. Sites that violate the law may be fined $10,000 per incident and
could face criminal penalties.
NetChoice, a trade association, challenged
the law on behalf of nine social media sites, saying it violated the First
Amendment.
In a brief concurrence, Justice Brett M.
Kavanaugh wrote that he, too, believed the law was “likely unconstitutional”
and that NetChoice would most likely succeed in arguing so down the road. But he
nonetheless agreed with the court’s conclusion that the company had not so far demonstrated
that it would be overwhelmingly harmed by the law temporarily taking effect
while the case proceeds through the courts.
About a dozen other states have broadly
similar laws. Seven other courts have blocked laws like the one in Mississippi,
NetChoice told the justices.
Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden issued a
preliminary injunction in June blocking the law while the trade group’s
challenge moved forward. In a 35-page decision, the judge accepted that “safeguarding
the physical and psychological well-being of minors online is an important governmental
interest” but ruled that the law appeared to apply to “substantially more
speech than is necessary for the state to accomplish its goals.”
A unanimous three-judge panel of the 5th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals paused Ozerden’s injunction, reviving the law.(Adam
Liptak and Zach Montague)
