Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 74

12 

MOODY v. NETCHOICE, LLC 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

NetChoice had failed to show that “H. B. 20 is . . . unconsti-
tutional  in  all  its  applications”  because  “a  number”  of 
NetChoice’s  members  had  conceded  that  the  law  did  “not 
burden or chill their speech”). 

To  clarify  these  and  other  “threshold  issues,”  Texas 
moved for expedited discovery.  Id., Doc. 20, at 1.  The Dis-
trict  Court  granted  Texas’s  motion  in  part,  but  after  one 
month  of  discovery,  it  sided  with  NetChoice  and  enjoined
H. B. 20 in its entirety before it could go into effect.  Texas 
appealed,  arguing  that  despite  the  District  Court’s  judg-
ment to the contrary, “[l]aws requiring commercial entities
to neutrally host speakers generally do not even implicate 
the  First  Amendment  because  they  do  not  regulate  the
host’s  speech  at  all—they  regulate  its  conduct.”  Brief  for 
Appellant in No. 21–51178 (CA5), p. 16.  The State also em-
phasized NetChoice’s alleged failure to show that H. B. 20 
was unconstitutional in even a “ ‘substantial number of its 
applications,’ ” 
that 
NetChoice needed to make to prevail on its facial challenge. 
E.g., Reply Brief in No. 21–51178 (CA5), p. 8 (quoting Amer-
icans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 594 U. S. 595, 615 
(2021)).

“bare  minimum”  showing 

the 

A divided Fifth Circuit panel reversed, focusing primarily
on NetChoice’s failure to “even try to show that HB 20 is
‘unconstitutional in all of its applications.’ ”  49 F. 4th 439, 
449 (2022) (quoting Washington State Grange v. Washing-
ton State Republican Party, 552 U. S. 442, 449 (2008)).  The 
court  also  accepted  Texas’s  argument  that  H. B.  20  “does 
not regulate the Platforms’ speech at all” because “the Plat-
forms  are  not  ‘speaking’  when  they  host  other  people’s 
speech.”  49  F. 4th,  at  448.    Finally,  the  court  upheld  the
law’s disclosure requirements on the ground that they in-
volve the disclosure of the type of purely factual and uncon-
troversial  information  that  may  be  compelled  under  Zau-
derer.  49 F. 4th, at 485.