Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 9

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

expression  are  subject  to  judicial  review  for  compliance
with the First Amendment. 

Today, we consider whether two state laws regulating social-
media  platforms  and  other  websites  facially  violate  the 
First Amendment.  The laws, from Florida and Texas, re-
strict  the  ability  of  social-media  platforms  to  control
whether and how third-party posts are presented to other 
users.  Or otherwise put, the laws limit the platforms’ ca-
pacity to engage in content moderation—to filter, prioritize,
and  label  the  varied  messages,  videos,  and  other  content 
their  users  wish  to  post.    In  addition,  though  far  less  ad-
dressed in this Court, the laws require a platform to provide
an individualized explanation to a user if it removes or al-
ters  her  posts.  NetChoice,  an  internet  trade  association, 
challenged both laws on their face—as a whole, rather than
as  to  particular  applications.  The  cases  come  to  us  at  an 
early  stage,  on  review  of  preliminary  injunctions.  The 
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld such an
injunction,  finding  that  the  Florida  law  was  not  likely  to
survive First Amendment review.  The Court of Appeals for
the  Fifth  Circuit  reversed  a  similar  injunction,  primarily
reasoning that the Texas law does not regulate any speech
and so does not implicate the First Amendment. 

the 

Today,  we  vacate  both  decisions  for  reasons  separate 
from the First Amendment merits, because neither Court of 
Appeals  properly  considered 
facial  nature  of 
NetChoice’s challenge.  The courts mainly addressed what 
the parties had focused on.  And the parties mainly argued
these cases as if the laws applied only to the curated feeds
offered by the largest and most paradigmatic social-media 
platforms—as  if,  say,  each  case  presented  an  as-applied
challenge brought by Facebook protesting its loss of control 
over  the  content  of  its  News  Feed.    But  argument  in  this 
Court revealed that the laws might apply to, and differently
affect, other kinds of websites and apps.  In a facial chal-
lenge,  that  could  well  matter,  even  when  the  challenge  is