The US Supreme Court will examine whether state regulations of social media networks are constitutionally unjust.

Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court decided on Friday to rule on the constitutionality of state legislation that aim to control Facebook, TikTok, X, and other social media sites.

The justices will examine measures passed by Republican-controlled legislatures in Florida and Texas and signed by Republican governors. Both regulations, though they have different specifics, are meant to stop social media corporations from limiting users based on their political views.

Three days before the start of its new term, the court made its statement as the justices continue to debate the applicability of rules from the early days of the internet to today’s online landscape.

The topic of whether public figures may prevent opponents from leaving comments on their social media accounts had already come up in a case involving then-President Donald Trump, and the justices had already decided to rule on it. When Donald Trump’s tenure as president came to an end in January 2021, the court rejected the lawsuit.

Separately, the high court could take into account a lower court’s decision restricting discussions between executive branch representatives and social media firms over contentious online remarks.

The judges added a total of 12 cases on Friday, which will be heard throughout the winter.
They consist of: an argument over the FBI’s no-fly list. The Biden administration filed the appeal in a case involving a guy from Oregon who had previously been off the list but had now been reinstated.

He was allowed to carry on with his claim by a federal appeals court since the FBI never renounced their initial inclusion of him.

— A copyright dispute over a popular song from the 1980s that was used by hip-hop performer Flo Rida. A lower court’s decision against music publishing businesses that were accused of copyright infringement in relation to the 2008 song “In the Ayer” is being appealed.

— A request made by landowners in southeast Texas who want the government to reimburse them for acquiring their property illegally. They contend in their complaint that a successful initiative to upgrade Interstate 10 and ensure that it is still usable in inclement weather causes major flooding on their homes during periods of heavy rainfall.

The latest social media lawsuits come after two appeals courts issued contrasting opinions, one of which maintained the Texas legislation and the other of which invalidated Florida’s measure. The court decided to maintain the Texas law’s pending status by a 5-4 margin.

However, the alignment was peculiar. Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice John Roberts voted in favor of approving the emergency request made by two technology sector organizations that had filed a legal challenge against the statute.

The laws would have continued to be in force if they had been upheld by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch. Alito expressed disapproval in his dissenting opinion, stating that “social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news.”

Republicans have pushed to depict social media corporations as largely liberal in perspective and opposed to ideas outside of that viewpoint, particularly from the political right, in order to advance the regulations, as have numerous states with comparable laws.

The internet industry expressed concern that the legislation would make it difficult for platforms to remove extremism and hate speech.

Chris Marchese, the litigation director for the industry association NetChoice, stated in a statement that “online services have a well-established First Amendment right to host, curate, and share content as they see fit.” “The government must not control the internet since it is a crucial venue for free speech. We are certain that the Court will concur.

Despite the fact that all parties agreed the high court should intervene, the justices delayed their examination of the issue without providing any justification.

Last year, the justices were presented with a number of social media-related problems, including a request that the court relax the legal protections that tech corporations have for user-generated content.