U.S. Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Texas Anti-Censorship Law

A Texas law that seeks to prohibit discriminatory censorship via social media platforms was temporarily stopped by the Supreme Court.

However, the decision was not based on merits but rather placed it on holdIt cannot be enforced until the federal courts have decided.

The decision follows the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in mid-May lifting a district court injunction on the Texas anti-censorship law – HB 20 – which temporarily allowed the law to enter into effect. The law dictates that tech platforms with over 50 million monthly users cannot moderate users’ content on the basis of their viewpoints.  

The dissenting opinions were written by Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. did not sign onto Alito’s opinion or explain her reasoning, according to a tweet by SCOTUSblog. The author of the dissenting opinion, Alito, noted Big Tech’s prolific ability to shape public opinion.

“Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news,” Alito wrote. “At issue is a ground-breaking Texas law that addresses the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day.”

He added, however, that he had “not formed a definitive view on the novel legal questions that arise from Texas’s decision to address the ‘changing social and economic’ conditions it perceives.”

Alito claimed that Alito’s statement was the reason why law must remain in effect for now.

“While I can understand the [Supreme] Court’s apparent desire to delay enforcement of HB20 while the appeal is pending, the preliminary injunction entered by the District Court was itself a significant intrusion on state sovereignty, and Texas should not be required to seek preclearance from the federal courts before its laws go into effect,” Alito wrote.

NetChoice and Computer and Communications Industry Association, the Big Tech trade organizations that requested the injunction were pleased with the temporary pause. They represent companies such as Amazon, Google, and Twitter.

“Texas’s HB 20 is a constitutional trainwreck — or, as the district court put it, an example of ‘burning the house to roast the pig,’” NetChoice attorney Chris Marchese said in a statement. “We are relieved that the First Amendment, open internet, and the users who rely on it remain protected from Texas’s unconstitutional overreach.”

Matt Schruers (CCIA President) expressed similar views.

“No online platform, website, or newspaper should be directed by government officials to carry certain speech,” Schruers said in a statement. “This has been a key tenet of our democracy for more than 200 years and the Supreme Court has upheld that.”

Today’s ruling followed an opinion from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals about a week ago that upheld a block on a similar law in Florida on the basis that it violated Big Tech companies’ free speech rights. 

The case now proceeds to the district court for a ruling on the law’s merits. 

Conservatives under attack Your representatives should be contacted to insist that Big Tech be held responsible for ensuring the First Amendment is mirrored and conservatives are treated equally. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s Contact formPlease help us make Big Tech more accountable.