JACKSON, Mississippi – The Supreme Court has effectively allowed Mississippi’s controversial age verification law to be enforced, rejecting an emergency request from NetChoice, a tech industry trade group, to block its implementation.The decision, handed down recently, compels online platforms serving Mississippi users to verify the ages of their users and collect sensitive personal details, or face substantial fines.
The law, officially known as the Mississippi Age-Verifying Online Protection act, requires websites with user-generated content to implement age verification measures. Platforms must ensure users are at least 13 years old, and identify and track users believed to be minors – a requirement differing from practices in other states. The company, in a statement, expressed concern that the law necessitates collecting sensitive personal data and conducting age checks for all Mississippi users, creating barriers to free speech and disproportionately impacting smaller platforms and emerging technologies. ”The Supreme Court’s recent decision leaves us facing a hard reality: comply with Mississippi’s age assurance law — and make every Mississippi Bluesky user hand over sensitive personal information and undergo age checks to access the site — or risk massive fines,” the company wrote.”We think this law creates challenges that go beyond its child safety goals, and creates significant barriers that limit free speech and disproportionately harm smaller platforms and emerging technologies.”
The legal battle began in june when District Court Judge Halil Ozerden, in the Southern District of Mississippi, issued an injunction blocking the law’s enforcement against eight NetChoice members: Dreamwidth, Meta platforms (parent company of Facebook and Instagram), Nextdoor, Pinterest, Reddit, Snapchat, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube. Judge Ozerden found the law likely burdened speech more than necessary to protect minors.
“As applied to NetChoice’s covered members, the Act likely burdens substantially more speech than is necessary for the state to safeguard the physical and psychological wellbeing of minors online,” Judge Ozerden wrote in his ruling. he further stated the law would restrict minors’ access to content “nonetheless of whether the content concerns or negatively affects minors’ physical and psychological wellbeing.”
Though, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals swiftly stayed that injunction last month, pausing its effect while the case continued. NetChoice promptly petitioned the Supreme Court to reinstate the injunction on an emergency basis, arguing the law posed an immediate threat to free speech rights. The Supreme Court denied that request, allowing Mississippi to begin enforcing the law while NetChoice’s broader legal challenge proceeds in the lower courts.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a written concurrence explaining his vote. While acknowledging the law is ”likely unconstitutional,” kavanaugh stated NetChoice had not adequately demonstrated the “balance of harms and equities” justified an emergency order halting enforcement. He indicated the issue warrants further consideration in the lower courts. “Mississippi’s law is likely unconstitutional,” Kavanaugh wrote, ”but NetChoice ‘has not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities’ warrants an emergency order.”
The Mississippi law is part of a growing national trend of state-level legislation aimed at protecting children online. Similar laws have been proposed or enacted in states like Utah, Arkansas, and Louisiana, all facing legal challenges from civil liberties groups and tech companies. These laws generally seek to require age verification, parental consent, or other measures to limit minors’ access to certain online content, particularly content deemed harmful or exploitative. The core debate centers on balancing child safety with First Amendment rights to free speech and privacy.
NetChoice continues to pursue its legal challenge in the lower courts, arguing the Mississippi law is overly broad and will stifle legitimate online expression. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of online content regulation and the balance between protecting children and preserving free speech rights across the country.
