Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 43.0

2 

MOODY v. NETCHOICE, LLC 

Opinion of JACKSON, J. 

Court  acknowledge,  plaintiffs  bringing  a  facial  challenge 
must clear a high bar.  See ante, at 9–10 (majority opinion); 
post,  at  13–14  (ALITO,  J.,  concurring  in  judgment).    The 
Eleventh Circuit failed to appreciate the nature of this chal-
lenge, and the Fifth Circuit did not adequately evaluate it. 
That said, I agree with JUSTICE BARRETT that the Eleventh 
Circuit  at  least  fairly  stated  our  First  Amendment  prece-
dent, whereas the Fifth Circuit did not.  See ante, at 1 (con-
curring opinion); see also ante, at 13–19 (majority opinion).
On remand, then, both courts will have to undertake their 
legal analyses anew. 

In doing so, the lower courts must address these cases at
the right level of specificity.  The question is not whether 
an entire category of corporations (like social media compa-
nies) or a particular entity (like Facebook) is generally en-
gaged in expression.  Nor is it enough to say that a given
activity  (say,  content  moderation)  for  a  particular  service 
(the News Feed, for example) seems roughly analogous to a
more  familiar  example  from  our  precedent.    Cf.  Red  Lion 
Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 386 (1969) (posit-
ing that “differences in the characteristics of new media jus-
tify differences in the First Amendment standards applied
to them”).  Even when evaluating a broad facial challenge,
courts must make sure they carefully parse not only what
entities are regulated, but how the regulated activities ac-
tually  function  before  deciding  if  the  activity  in  question 
constitutes expression and therefore comes within the First
Amendment’s  ambit.  See  Brief  for  Knight  First  Amend-
ment  Institute  at  Columbia  University  as  Amicus  Curiae 
11–12.  Thus,  further  factual  development  may  be  neces-
sary  before  either  of  today’s  challenges  can  be  fully  and 
fairly addressed. 

In light of the high bar for facial challenges and the state
of these cases as they come to us, I would not go on to treat
either like an as-applied challenge and preview our poten-
tial ruling on the merits.  Faced with difficult constitutional