Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 73

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

11 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

Platforms  must  allow  users  to  appeal  removal  decisions
through  “an  easily  accessible  complaint  system;”  resolve 
such appeals within 14 business days (unless an enumer-
ated exception applies); and, if the appeal is successful, pro-
vide “the reason for the reversal.”  §§120.101, 120.103(a)(2), 
(a)(3)(B)–(b), 120.104. 

Users  may  sue  any  platform  that  violates  these  provi-
sions,  as  may  the  Texas  attorney  general.    §143A.007(d).
But unlike the Florida law, H. B. 20 authorizes only injunc-
tive relief.  §§143A.007(a), 143A.008.  It contains a strong 
severability  provision,  §8(a),  which  reaches  “every  provi-
sion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word 
in th[e] Act, and every application of [its] provisions.” 

2 
As it did in the Florida case, NetChoice sought a prelimi-
nary injunction in federal court, claiming that H. B. 20 vio-
lates  the  First  Amendment  in  its  entirety.    In  response,
Texas argued that because H. B. 20 regulates NetChoice’s
members “in their operation as publicly accessible conduits
for the speech of others” rather than “as authors or editors”
of their own speech, NetChoice could not prevail.  Record in 
No. 1:21–CV–00840 (WD Tex.), Doc. 39, p. 23.  But even if 
the platforms might have the right to use algorithms to cen-
sor  their  users’  speech,  the  State  argued,  the  question  of 
“what  these  algorithms  are  doing  is  a  critical,  and  so  far,
unexplained, aspect of this case.”  Id., at 24.  This deficiency 
mattered,  Texas  contended,  because  the  platforms  could
succeed  on their facial challenge only by showing that “all 
algorithms  used  by  the  Platforms  are  for  the  purposes  of 
expressing viewpoints of those Platforms.”  Id., at 27.  And 
because NetChoice had not even explained what its mem-
bers’ algorithms did, much less whether they did so in an 
expressive  way,  Texas  argued  that  NetChoice  had  not 
shown  that  “all  applications  of  H.B.  20  are  unconstitu-
tional.”  Ibid.;  see  also  id.,  Doc.  53,  at  13  (arguing  that