134 F.4th 799
5th Cir.2025Background
- Mississippi enacted House Bill 1126 (the “Act”) to regulate minors’ use of internet platforms, aiming to protect them from online harmful material.
- The Act requires digital service providers to verify users’ ages, obtain parental consent for minors, limit data collection from minors, and implement measures to reduce harmful content exposure.
- Plaintiff NetChoice, an association representing various internet companies, challenged the Act as unconstitutional under the First Amendment and for vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction halting enforcement, finding NetChoice likely to succeed on its facial challenge; the Mississippi Attorney General appealed.
- The Supreme Court’s ruling in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, issued after the district court’s decision, clarified the proper standard for facial First Amendment challenges and required detailed factual analysis before granting relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | NetChoice has associational standing; its members face increased regulatory burdens and potential criminal liability. | NetChoice lacks organizational standing and can't assert users’ rights. | NetChoice satisfies both constitutional and prudential (associational) standing. |
| Facial Challenge Under 1st Amendment | Act substantially restricts protected speech and is facially unconstitutional. | District court failed to properly analyze; Act does not broadly burden speech. | District court did not follow the two-step Moody analysis; injunctive relief vacated and remanded. |
| Scope and Application of the Act | Act clearly defines covered actors and activities; district court’s brief scope identification is adequate. | District court did not determine all covered activities/actors; analysis inadequate. | Insufficient factual analysis; district court must define scope before evaluating constitutionality. |
| Preliminary Injunction Standard | Injunction warranted due to likely First Amendment violation and vagueness. | Did not establish likelihood of success under clarified Moody standard. | Vacated; fuller factual analysis required under Moody. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707 (clarifies the standard for facial First Amendment challenges and the required factual analysis)
- Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass’n, Inc., 484 U.S. 383 (standing for pre-enforcement challenges to laws regulating expressive conduct)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (standing for chilling effect in First Amendment cases)
- Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786 (limits on government regulation of minors’ access to expression under First Amendment)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (associational and organizational standing doctrine)