787 F.Supp.3d 262
S.D. Miss.2025Background
- NetChoice, a trade association of internet companies (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, YouTube), challenged Mississippi House Bill 1126 (“H.B. 1126”), which imposed age verification, parental consent, and content prevention requirements for minors accessing certain social media platforms.
- The law was set to take effect July 1, 2024, and would have required covered platforms to verify user ages and obtain parental consent for known minors, with civil and potential criminal penalties for violations.
- NetChoice argued that the law is unconstitutional under the First Amendment, both on its face and as applied to its members' platforms, claiming it overbroadly and underinclusively restricts access to protected speech.
- The District Court had previously granted an injunction blocking the law, but the Fifth Circuit remanded for further analysis, particularly after new Supreme Court precedent (Moody v. NetChoice).
- On remand, NetChoice added as-applied claims specific to its covered members and sought a renewed preliminary injunction.
- After reviewing the legal standards (including content-based regulation and scrutiny), the Court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of H.B. 1126 against NetChoice’s eight covered members, finding the law likely unconstitutional as applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment Applicability | The Act regulates expressive speech and access. | Regulates non-expressive conduct, not speech. | Act is content-based, triggers strict scrutiny. |
| Narrow Tailoring/Strict Scrutiny | Act overbroadly/underinclusively restricts access and is not narrowly tailored; alternatives exist. | Measures are necessary and tailored to protect minors. | Act is not narrowly tailored and over/underinclusive. |
| Likelihood of Irreparable Harm | Enforcement would result in loss of First Amendment rights and unrecoverable compliance costs. | No adequate showing of harm; statute is proper. | Irreparable harm found due to First Amendment interests. |
| Need for Security/Bond | No security necessary for injunction. | Not expressly contested. | No bond required due to public interest litigation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sable Commc’ns of California, Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (recognizing a compelling government interest in protecting minors, but requiring narrow tailoring)
- Brown v. Ent. Merchants Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786 (state cannot broadly restrict minors’ access to protected speech; overbroad/underinclusive laws fail constitutional scrutiny)
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (explains content-based speech restrictions require strict scrutiny)
- United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (reiterates government cannot restrict expression based on content except in rare circumstances)
- Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 587 U.S. 802 (First Amendment applies to the states)
- Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585 (explains irreparable harm standard for preliminary injunctions)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (loss of First Amendment freedoms is irreparable injury)
- Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (distinguishes content-based from content-neutral regulations)
- Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (laws impacting speech must be narrowly tailored, strong protection for online speech)
- United States v. Playboy Ent. Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (uses less restrictive alternatives principle in First Amendment cases)