U.S. Supreme Court Halts Controversial Texas’ Social Media Law

A Supreme Court jury has voted to halt controversial Texas’ social media law dubbed HB20, which was introduced early last year, but has faced unrelenting legal battles amidst backlash from activists since it was enacted in September.

Two tech industry groups, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice, representing major social media platforms, had challenged the law in court. The HB20 was designed to stop social media platforms from blocking users over what they post, and empowers the Attorney General and account holders to sue social media platforms when their rights to post contents are violated.

The HB20 was triggered by the ban of former president Donald Trump and other top members of the Republican Party from major social media platforms post 2020 election. But it has faced a rocky ride through the courts.

Texas, a Republican state, was at the forefront of conservative claims of tech’s liberal ideological bias. The push behind the HB20 is to prevent social media platforms from blocking conservatives over their viewpoints considered unhealthy.

But in May, in a surprise ruling, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had unblocked the law, overturning the earlier judgment of the trial court which prohibited Texas and its Attorney General from enforcing the HB20. But the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of the applicants.

“Applicants now ask this Court to vacate that stay while the Fifth Circuit resolves the appeal of the underlying preliminary injunction, and the Court grants that extraordinary relief,” Justice Samuel Alito said in the ruling.

“The May 11, 2022 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit staying the district court’s preliminary injunction is vacated.”

However, the Supreme Court ruling isn’t the final word on HB20. The CCIA and NetChoice are contending that “the law is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment,” which protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The argument which is yet to be settled is based on the First Amendment and the state’s sovereignty. Alito, who was among the justices who voted in favor of the state, said in his dissent that Texas has the right to make and enforce its own laws.

“While I can understand the 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.

“The Court of Appeals, after briefing and oral argument, concluded that the District Court’s order should be stayed, and a decision on the merits can be expected in the near future. I would not disturb the Court of Appeals’ informed judgment about applicants’ entitlement to a stay,” he said.