The question
Whether Florida and Texas laws restricting how large social-media platforms moderate content violate the First Amendment.
Moody v. NetChoice, LLC
What the Court decided
The Court sent the challenges to Florida and Texas social-media laws back to the lower courts without deciding whether the laws are constitutional. It held that neither court of appeals had properly analyzed the broad facial First Amendment challenge, and it explained that a platform's choices about which content to carry are themselves expression the First Amendment protects.
How the justices split
UnanimousThe Court's opinion
Kagan, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett
The lower courts did not properly weigh the full range of activities the laws cover before ruling on a facial challenge, so the judgments are vacated. The Court explained that when a platform compiles and curates the content it displays, that editorial choice is protected expression, and a state may not force a platform to carry speech it would rather exclude in order to balance the debate.
Concurring in the judgment
Alito, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch
Alito agreed only that remand was proper but disagreed with the majority's discussion of the First Amendment, arguing the Court should not have opined on the merits and questioning whether content moderation is protected editorial judgment.
How we know · 3 sourced claims
The Court vacated and remanded because neither lower court properly analyzed the facial First Amendment challenges.
Source: syllabus, Held, at 22-277
The Court explained that a platform's editorial curation of content is protected First Amendment expression.
Source: opinion of the Court (Kagan, J.)
Kagan, J., wrote for the Court; Alito, J., concurred only in the judgment, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, JJ.
Source: syllabus, lineup