Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a720_6536.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

NETCHOICE, LLC v. PAXTON 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

that  have  at  least  “50  million  active  users  in  the  United 
States in a calendar month.”  App. to Application 39a–41a
(App.).  Section  7  of  HB20  prohibits  these  platforms  from 
“censor[ing]” users based on viewpoint, and §2 requires cov-
ered  platforms  to  disclose  certain  information  about  their 
business practices, including an “acceptable use policy” and 
“a  biannual  transparency  report.”    Id.,  at  39a–46a,  48a– 
52a.  These  platforms  must  also  establish  procedures  by
which  users  can  appeal  a  platform’s  decision  to  “remove 
content posted by the user.”  Id., at 44a. 

Applicants are two trade associations that represent ma-
jor  social  media  platforms  covered  by  the  statute.    They
challenged  the  constitutionality  of  HB20  in  the  United 
States District Court for the Western District of Texas, con-
tending, among other things, that the law is facially uncon-
stitutional under the First Amendment.  The court agreed,
and  it  preliminarily  enjoined  the  Texas  attorney  general
from enforcing the statute.  The United States Court of Ap-
peals for the Fifth Circuit—after full briefing and oral ar-
gument—stayed  that  preliminary  injunction.  Applicants
now ask this Court to vacate that stay while the Fifth Cir-
cuit resolves the appeal of the underlying preliminary in-
junction, and the Court grants that extraordinary relief. 

I cannot agree with the Court’s disposition.  To be entitled 
to vacatur of the stay, applicants must show, among other
things, a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” 
Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of Health and Hu-
man Servs., 594 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (per curiam) (slip op., 
at 5).  Members of this Court have argued that a determi-
nation regarding an applicant’s likelihood of success must
be made under “existing law,” Merrill v. Milligan, 595 U. S. 
___, ___ (2022) (ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1); 
Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 
595 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip
op.,  at  1)  (“existing  precedent”).    And  whether  applicants
are likely to succeed under existing law is quite unclear.