In an unusual lineup, the five majority judges were Chief Justice John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Sonia Sotomayor.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan joined Conservative judges Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, who allegedly denied the request.
The Supreme Court order is a loss to Texas. The state argued that its law, HB 20, which prohibits large social media companies from blocking, banning or degrading posts or accounts, does not violate the First Amendment.
The majority did not explain their thinking and Kagan did not set out his own reasoning for his vote to allow the law to remain in force.
But Alito, writing for himself, Thomas and Gorsuch, was critical of the majority’s decision. He said the case raises “very important” issues about an “innovative” Texas law that addresses “the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion about the major issues of the day.” He stressed that no “definitive view” had been formed on the new legal issues arising from the law, but that he would not have intervened to block the law “at this point in the proceedings”.
“Texas should not be required to seek prior authorization from federal courts before its laws come into force,” Alito wrote.
Opponents of HB 20, including the technology industry, argued that the law violates the constitutional rights of technology platforms to make editorial decisions and to be free from government-forced discourse.
The state argued that HB 20 does not violate the First Amendment because the law seeks to regulate the conduct of technology platforms toward its users, not corporate discourse, and that it seeks to designate them as “common carriers” similar to railways and telephone companies. .
The larger case is seen as a benchmark for the social media industry and could determine whether technology platforms should reduce content moderation in more than Texas and allow for a wide range of material that its terms currently prohibit. .
The Computer and Communications Industry Association, one of the groups behind the emergency petition, said the decision upholds more than 200 years of principles of free speech against government violations of private speech. .
“We appreciate the Supreme Court ensuring that First Amendment protections, including the right not to be forced to speak, are maintained during the legal challenge to Texas social media law,” said CCIA President Matt Schruers. “The Supreme Court pointing out the constitutional risks of this law is important not only for online businesses and freedom of expression, but for a key principle for democratic countries.”
CNN has contacted Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to comment.
In a separate dispute, a different federal appellate court suspended most of a similar law outside of Florida, creating a division of the circuit over the issue. The Supreme Court is often more likely to get into a dispute if the lower courts are in direct conflict.
Texas law is being challenged by advocacy groups representing the technology industry.
In court documents, the groups described the law as “an unprecedented assault on the editorial discretion of private websites.” They warn that “it would force the platforms to spread all sorts of reprehensible views, such as Russian propaganda claiming that its invasion of Ukraine is justified, ISIS propaganda claiming that extremism is justified, neo-Nazi or KKK criteria denying or supporting the Holocaust. ” and encouraging children to engage in risky or unhealthy behaviors such as eating disorders. ”
In response, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had argued that HB 20 does not infringe on the rights of technology platforms.
The legal battle has attracted “court-friendly” writings from stakeholders, including groups such as the Anti-Defamation League and the NAACP, who had urged the Court to block the law, arguing that “it will transform social media platforms into online repositories of villages, graphic content, harmful, hateful and fraudulent, of no use to the people currently involved in these communities. “
A group of Florida-led states also filed a lawsuit defending Texas law. The court’s writ of friends, which was written by a dozen states including Alabama, Arizona, Kentucky and South Carolina, among others, reflects how the legal battle over HB 20 has ramifications nationwide.