Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Moody v. NetChoice, LLC

Supreme Court of the United States · 2024 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFacial ChallengesContent ModerationEditorial DiscretionFirst Amendmentfacial challengesubstantial applications

Facts

Florida and Texas enacted laws regulating large social-media platforms' content-moderation practices and requiring individualized explanations for certain moderation decisions. The laws restrict platforms' ability to remove, alter, label, deprioritize, or otherwise disfavor user posts, with Texas in particular barring censorship based on viewpoint. NetChoice challenged both laws facially on First Amendment grounds. The litigation below focused mainly on major platforms' curated feeds, such as Facebook's News Feed and YouTube's homepage, rather than the laws' full range of possible applications.

Issue

In facial First Amendment challenges to Florida's and Texas's social-media laws, did the courts below properly analyze whether the laws are unconstitutional in a substantial number of their applications relative to their plainly legitimate sweep? Relatedly, does the First Amendment protect major platforms' editorial choices in curated feeds such that Texas may not justify interference by claiming an interest in rebalancing private speech?

Rule

In a First Amendment facial challenge, the court must determine a law's full set of applications, decide which applications are constitutional and which are not, and ask whether a substantial number of the law's applications are unconstitutional judged in relation to its plainly legitimate sweep. The First Amendment protects an entity's own expressive activity, including presenting a curated compilation of third-party speech through editorial choices about inclusion, exclusion, organization, prioritization, and labeling; government may not alter those choices simply to improve or rebalance the marketplace of ideas.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Colorado enacts a statute regulating large online services with more than 40 million monthly users. A trade association sues before enforcement and wins a preliminary injunction after the district court examines only how the statute affects StreamSquare's curated home page in Denver, while ignoring the law's coverage of direct messaging, business-review pages, and event listings.

On appeal, which is the strongest objection to the district court's First Amendment facial analysis?

Explanation. In a First Amendment facial challenge, the court cannot focus only on a law's heartland application. It must identify the statute's full range of applications, decide which are constitutional and which are not, and then ask whether a substantial number of applications are unconstitutional in relation to the law's plainly legitimate sweep. That was the core procedural holding of the majority opinion.