Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 70.0

8 

MOODY v. NETCHOICE, LLC 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

(ND Fla.), Doc. 106, p. 22 (citing Rumsfeld v. Forum for Ac-
ademic  and  Institutional  Rights,  Inc.,  547  U. S.  47,  64 
(2006)  (FAIR)).  And,  in  any  event,  Florida  argued  that 
NetChoice’s facial challenge was likely to fail at the thresh-
old because NetChoice had not identified which of its mem-
bers were required to comply with the new law or how each
of  its  members’  presentation  of  third-party  speech  ex-
pressed that platform’s own message.  Record, Doc. 106, at 
30, 58–59; id., Doc. 118, pp. 5, 24–25.  Without this infor-
mation,  Florida  said,  it  could  not  properly  respond  to
NetChoice’s facial claim.  Id., Doc. 122, pp. 4–5.  Florida re-
quested a “meaningful opportunity to take discovery.”  Tr. 
of  Oral  Arg.  in  No.  22–277,  p. 154.    NetChoice  objected. 
Record, Doc. 122. 

Despite  these  arguments,  the  District  Court  enjoined 
S. B. 7072 in its entirety before the law could go into effect. 
Florida  appealed,  maintaining,  among  other  things,  that
NetChoice was “unlikely to prevail on the merits of [its] fa-
cial  First  Amendment  challenge.”  Brief  for  Appellants  in
No.  21–12355  (CA11),  p.  20;  Reply  Brief  in  No.  21–12355
(CA11), p. 15. 

With  just  one  exception,  the  Eleventh  Circuit  affirmed.
It first held that all the regulated platforms’ decisions about 
“whether, to what extent, and in what manner to dissemi-
nate third-party created content to the public” were consti-
tutionally  protected  expression.    NetChoice  v.  Attorney 
Gen., Fla., 34 F. 4th 1196, 1212 (2022).  Under that fram-
ing,  the  court  found  that  the  moderation  and  individual-
disclosure  provisions  likely  failed  intermediate  scrutiny, 
obviating the need to determine whether strict scrutiny ap-
plied.  Id., at 1227.9  But the court held that the general-

—————— 

9 See also id., at 1214 (“unless posts and users are removed randomly, 
those sorts of actions necessarily convey some sort of message—most ob-
viously,  the  platforms’  disagreement  with  . . .  certain  content”);  id.,  at 
1223  (“S.B.  7072’s  disclosure  provisions  implicate  the  First  Amend-
ment”).