Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 42.0

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

1 

Opinion of JACKSON, J. 

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 JACKSON, concurring in part and concurring in 

the judgment. 

These cases present a complex clash between two novel 
state laws and the alleged First Amendment rights of sev-
eral of the largest social media platforms.  Some things are 
already clear.  Not every potential action taken by a social 
media company will qualify as expression protected under 
the First Amendment.  But not every hypothesized regula-
tion of such a company’s operations will necessarily be able
to withstand the force of the First Amendment’s protections
either.  Beyond those broadest of statements, it is difficult
to  say  much  more  at  this  time.  With  these  records  and 
lower court decisions, we are not able to adequately evalu-
ate whether the challenged state laws are facially valid. 

That is in no small part because, as all Members of the