Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 38.0

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

1 

BARRETT, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 22–277 and 22–555 
_________________ 

ASHLEY MOODY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 
FLORIDA, ET AL., PETITIONERS 
v. 
NETCHOICE, LLC, DBA NETCHOICE, ET AL. 

22–277 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

NETCHOICE, LLC, DBA NETCHOICE, ET AL., 
PETITIONERS 
v. 
KEN PAXTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

22–555 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

[July 1, 2024]

 JUSTICE BARRETT, concurring. 
I join the Court’s opinion, which correctly articulates and
applies  our  First  Amendment  precedent.    In  this  respect, 
the Eleventh Circuit’s understanding of the First Amend-
ment’s protection of editorial discretion was generally cor-
rect; the Fifth Circuit’s was not. 

But for the reasons the Court gives, these cases illustrate
the dangers of bringing a facial challenge.  If NetChoice’s 
members are concerned about preserving their editorial dis-
cretion with respect to the services on which they have fo-
cused throughout this litigation—e.g., Facebook’s Newsfeed 
and YouTube’s homepage—they would be better served by 
bringing a First Amendment challenge as applied to those 
functions.  Analyzing  how the First Amendment bears on