Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 91.0

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

29 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

These disclosures suggest that platforms can  say some-
thing about their content-moderation practices without en-
abling  malicious  actors  or  disclosing  proprietary  infor-
mation.  They also suggest that not all platforms curate all 
third-party content in an inherently expressive way.  With-
out more information about how regulated platforms mod-
erate content, it is not possible to  determine whether these 
laws  lack  “a  ‘ “plainly  legitimate  sweep.” ’ ”  Washington 
State Grange, 552 U. S., at 449. 

For  all  these  reasons,  NetChoice  failed  to  establish 
whether  the  content-moderation  provisions  violate  the 
First Amendment on their face. 

D 
Although the only question the Court must decide today
is  whether  NetChoice  showed  that  the  Florida  and  Texas 
laws  are  facially  unconstitutional,  much  of  the  majority 
opinion addresses a different question: whether the Texas 
law’s  content-moderation  provisions  are  constitutional  as 
applied to two features of two platforms—Facebook’s News 
Feed and YouTube’s homepage.  The opinion justifies this 
discussion on the ground that the Fifth Circuit cannot apply 
the facial constitutionality test without resolving that ques-
tion,  see,  e.g.,  ante,  at  13,  30,  but  that  is  not  necessarily 
true.  Especially in light of the wide reach of the Texas law, 
NetChoice may still fall far short of establishing facial un-
constitutionality—even if it is assumed for the sake of ar-
gument that the Texas law is unconstitutional as applied to
Facebook’s News Feed and YouTube’s homepage.53 

For  this  reason,  the  majority’s  “guidance”  on  this  issue 
may  well  be  superfluous.  Yet  superfluity  is  not  its  most 
egregious  flaw.  The  majority’s  discussion  also  rests  on 
wholly  conclusory  assumptions  that  lack  record  support. 

—————— 

53 This  problem  is  even  more  pronounced  for  the  Florida  law,  which

covers more platforms and conduct than the Texas law.