NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton

In 2021, the State of Texas (the state) enacted House Bill 20 (HB20), which regulated publicly accessible social-media platforms that had at least 50 million active users in the United States in a calendar month. Section 7 of HB20 prohibited covered platforms from censoring users based on viewpoint, with censoring defined to include blocking, banning, removing, deplatforming, demonetizing, deboosting, or restricting expression. Section 2 of HB20 imposed disclosure requirements on covered platforms, including disclosure of the platforms’ acceptable-use policies and biannual transparency reports. HB20 also required covered platforms to establish procedures by which a user could appeal the platform’s decision to remove the user’s content. NetChoice, LLC and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (collectively, NetChoice) (plaintiffs) were trade associations that represented major social-media platforms. NetChoice brought an action against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (defendant) in federal district court in Texas, asserting a preenforcement challenge to HB20. NetChoice contended, among other things, that HB20 was facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment. According to NetChoice, § 7 interfered with social-media platforms’ exercise of editorial discretion, which violated the platforms’ rights to refuse to disseminate speech generated by other people. The district court agreed that HB20 was facially unconstitutional and granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Paxton from enforcing the statute. The state appealed, and the Fifth Circuit stayed the preliminary injunction pending appeal. NetChoice asked the United States Supreme Court to vacate the stay.