Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 63

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

1 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

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  ALITO,  with  whom  JUSTICE  THOMAS  and 

JUSTICE GORSUCH join, concurring in the judgment. 

The holding in these cases is narrow:  NetChoice failed to 
prove that the Florida and Texas laws they challenged are 
facially unconstitutional. Everyt hing else in the opinion of 
the Court is nonbinding dicta.

I agree with the bottom line of the majority’s central hold-
ing. But its description of the Florida and Texas laws, as 
well  as  the  litigation  that  shaped  the  question  before  us, 
leaves much to be desired.  Its summary of our legal prece-
dents is incomplete.  And its broader ambition of providing 
guidance on whether one part of the Texas law is unconsti-
tutional as applied to two features of two of the many plat-
forms that it reaches—namely, Facebook’s News Feed and 
YouTube’s homepage—is unnecessary and unjustified. 

But given the incompleteness of this record, there is no