Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 45

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

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 22–277 and 22–555 
_________________ 

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

22–277 

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

NETCHOICE, LLC, DBA NETCHOICE, ET AL., 
PETITIONERS 
v. 
KEN PAXTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

22–555 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

[July 1, 2024]

 JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring in the judgment. 
I  agree  with  the  Court’s  decision  to  vacate  and  remand 
because NetChoice and the Computer and Communications
Industry Association (together, the trade associations) have 
not  established  that  Texas’s  H. B.  20  and  Florida’s  S. B. 
7072 are facially unconstitutional.

I  cannot  agree,  however,  with  the  Court’s  decision  to 
opine on certain applications of those statutes.  The Court’s 
discussion is unnecessary to its holding.  See Jama v. Im-
migration  and  Customs  Enforcement,  543  U. S.  335,  351, 
n. 12 (2005) (“Dictum settles nothing, even in the court that 
utters it”).  Moreover, the Court engages in the exact type
of analysis that it chastises the Courts of Appeals for per-
forming.  It faults the Courts of Appeals for focusing on only
one  subset  of  applications,  rather  than  determining