The , Supreme Court , did hear oral arguments Wednesday over a , Texas  , law that requires pornography websites to check the age of their customers, a case over lurid content that may influence the power of , Congress , and says to regulate adolescents ‘ access to the internet.
In , Free Speech Coalition , et cetera. v. Paxton, a group of opponents are set to attempt the magistrates to overturn the , Texas  , rules as an illegal copyright on free speech rights of individuals in , Texas.
They contend in court filings that Texas’s effort to stop minors from accessing sexual content online restricts the right of adults to do so, and that requiring identification info exposes those older visitors to identity theft, fraud, and other dangers.
The rules, signed by Gov.  , Greg Abbott , in 2023, requires that sex websites verify the identification of their people through usage of documents like a government-issued ID, and imposes a$ 10, 000 good per infraction or$ 250, 000 okay if that involves a minor.
The state’s current law is in place as a result of a decision from the , the 5th Circuit, and main sexual websites like Pornhub, which have announced they will no longer grant access to the state.
Eugene Volokh, a , UCLA , law professor who specializes in free talk issues, said a key issue in the case will be how the judges handle the 5th Circuit determination, which upheld the , Texas  , rules by relying on a 1960s situation requiring that , New York , booksellers verify the age of their customers before selling adult material.
In light of that case, the 5th Circuit imposed a more lenient test that didn’t take into account any potential chilling effects on adults ‘ online access to sexual content. The challengers contend that giving an ID to a store clerk is fundamentally different from providing it online, which raises the possibility of identity theft or tracking of their browsing patterns.
A more recent case, called Ashcroft v.  , ACLU, alleged Volokh that upheld a federal law imposing criminal penalties on any websites that let minors access offensive material.
In that case, the , Supreme Court , said less-restrictive measures like content-filtering software would be constitutional. According to Volokh, Volokh said,” That decision would suggest that age verification requirements are unconstitutional on the internet.”
Texas   has argued in court filings that pornographic websites must verify the user’s ages to help prevent minors from unintentionally accessing obscene images and videos.
” Texas has addressed only websites dedicated to pornography, has allowed them to comply by using common age-verification technology, and has not imposed criminal penalties. Such a modest but important law satisfies any level of scrutiny”, Texas ‘ , brief , said.
Sen.  , Mike Lee, R-Utah, emphasized those stakes in , a court brief , filed along with four other Republican Senators and 18 , Republican House , members urging the justices to uphold the , Texas  , law.
The brief stated that” congress and state governments have a crucial role to play in protecting America’s youth from this ever-growing commercialization of sex through electronic devices.”
The brief claimed that an “optimistic assumption” that content-filtering software could prevent minors from viewing pornography was present in the two decades since the Ashcroft decision.
Upholding the , Texas  , law “affords policymakers the breathing room they need to protect our nation’s children while preserving our First Amendment freedoms”, the lawmaker brief said.
That would also allow for the passage of national legislation, such as the one that Congress introduced last year that would require age verification for all websites hosting content “harmful to minors,” according to the brief.
The Biden administration requested that the justices overturn the 5th Circuit decision, but they had to not necessarily decide in favor of the law’s opponents. The Biden administration claimed in its own brief that the lower court improperly evaluated the law using the wrong test.
According to the Biden administration brief, the justices should instead send the case back to the 5th Circuit, but” the Court should make it clear that the First Amendment does not prohibit Congress from enacting appropriately tailored measures to prevent children from accessing harmful sexual content on the Internet—potentially including age-verification requirements that have long been applied to the distribution of such material in the physical world.”
In a press call earlier this month, an , ACLU , staff attorney said the Supreme Court’s decision in the case could ripple far beyond pornography. The , ACLU , represents the petitioners in the case, seeking to overturn the , Texas  , law.
” This case matters because it’s about how the government can treat speech it doesn’t like, and pornography is often the canary in the coal mine for free speech, and it also matters because it’s about the future of free speech online” , , Vera Eidelman , said.
Eidelman argued that the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the constitutionality of age restrictions could have an impact on ongoing efforts to regulate minors ‘ access to social media in both the states and Congress.
In their , Supreme Court , brief, the challengers argued the , Texas  , law sweeps in any website that contains any” salacious material”, not just porn, and includes massive loopholes for social media websites and search engines.
The challengers claimed that upholding the low standard used by the 5th Circuit could lead to further sexual material bans. Using a higher standard, as the , Supreme Court , has done in the past “would not render states powerless to protect minors. They would simply need to do so through a law that has been carefully chosen.
Volokh said that there are factors around pornography and “obscene” content in free speech cases that he thinks would limit the fallout of the justices ‘ decision in the , Texas  , case.
” Any decision in this case is likely to be limited to porn,” Volokh said. Even if the prohibition on distributing porn to minors can be upheld, it might not apply to other content, including allegedly causing harm to minors through social media use.
Volokh also said the , Supreme Court , may focus on technicalities of the , Texas  , law, such as how websites identify the age of their visitors, rather than issue a broader decision concerning free speech rights online.
Eric Chaffee, a law professor at , Case Western Reserve University, said that while the justices have issued sweeping decisions changing gun rights, administrative law and other issues recently, “remaking the law in terms of free speech doesn’t seem to be a priority for this court”.
However, he pointed out that numerous conservative organizations and lawmakers, such as the members of , Congress , led by Lee, have weighed in could push the court in the other direction.
Chaffee stated that he believes the court will most likely end up sending the case back to the 5th Circuit with instructions to use a more stringent legal test that requires the state to justify any restrictions it places on the rights of those affected by the law.
The question is whether there is a more limited way to accomplishing this particular goal, Chaffee said,” but the protection of children is a compelling state interest.”
___
© 2025 CQ-Roll Call, Inc
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
