Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2023 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

MOODY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA, ET AL. v. 
NETCHOICE, LLC, DBA NETCHOICE, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

No. 22–277.  Argued February 26, 2024—Decided July 1, 2024* 

In 2021, Florida and Texas enacted statutes regulating large social-me-
dia companies and other internet platforms.  The States’ laws differ in 
the entities they cover and the activities they limit.  But both curtail 
the platforms’ capacity to engage in content moderation—to filter, pri-
oritize,  and  label  the  varied  third-party  messages,  videos,  and  other 
content their users wish to post.  Both laws also include individualized-
explanation provisions, requiring a platform to give reasons to a user 
if it removes or alters her posts.

NetChoice LLC and the Computer & Communications Industry As-
sociation (collectively, NetChoice)—trade associations whose members 
include  Facebook  and  YouTube—brought  facial  First  Amendment 
challenges against the two laws.  District courts in both States entered 
preliminary injunctions.

The Eleventh Circuit upheld the injunction of Florida’s law, as to all
provisions relevant here.  The court held that the State’s restrictions 
on content moderation trigger First Amendment scrutiny under this 
Court’s cases protecting “editorial discretion.”  34 F. 4th 1196, 1209, 
1216.    The  court  then  concluded  that  the  content-moderation  provi-
sions are unlikely to survive heightened scrutiny.  Id., at 1227–1228. 
Similarly,  the  Eleventh  Circuit  thought  the  statute’s  individualized-
explanation requirements likely to fall.  Relying on Zauderer v. Office 
of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U. S. 626, the 

—————— 

*Together with No. 22–555, NetChoice, LLC, dba NetChoice, et al. v. 
Paxton,  Attorney  General  of  Texas,  on  certiorari  to  the  United  States 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.