The Supreme Court claims that Mississippi may require a social media age verification, for the moment

On Thursday, the Supreme Court refused to prevent the Mississippi from enforcing a law which would prevent minors from using nine popular social media sites without the consent of their parents – to have a short -term blow for the technology industry group which had requested emergency intervention from the High Court.

The high court judges did not develop their reasons to reject the emergency call, filed by the Netchoice industry group – a common practice when the Supreme Court decides on an emergency call – and has not provided voting enumeration.

Nechoice had asked the high court to suspend the law while the case continued to take place in the lower courts on its merits.

Only the judge of the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, gave any indication of his reflection in a competing opinion to three paragraphs, writing that, although he believes that the law in question is “probably unconstitutional” and that Netchoice “has shown that he would probably succeed in the merit” of the case, he accepted with his colleagues in the decision that the group did not respond to the highlight.

Scotus reigns over almost $ 2 billion in Payments Frozen Usaid

The judges of the Supreme Court attend the 60th inaugural ceremony on January 20, 2025 at the American Capitol in Washington, DC. (Ricky Carioti / The Washington Post via Getty Images)

The case will continue to play in the lower lessons and should return to the Supreme Court for full consideration on a later date.

The question is in question, the Mississippi’s social media law, known as HB 1126. The law, adopted by the State in 2024, prevents young people from accessing popular social media sites, in particular Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, Snapchat, Pinterest and Reddit without parental express consent.

It also forces social media sites to take additional measures to check the age of users before allowing them to create accounts and “develop and implement a strategy” to protect young people from exposure to harmful materials.

Sites that do not comply can be sentenced to a fine of up to $ 10,000 per violation and, in some cases, may incur criminal sanctions.

Light illuminates part of the Supreme Court building at dusk on Capitol Hill in Washington, November 16, 2022. (AP photo / Patrick Semansky, file)

Netchoice quickly continued to block the law, arguing that it had violated the protection of freedom of expression under the first amendment.

The American district judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden, in June, published a preliminary coating of injunction with Netchoice and temporarily preventing the Mississippi from implementing his law.

Although Judge Ozenden recognized that the state could have “imperative interest” for the safeguarding of online minors, he declared that the Mississippi law implied “much more speeches than necessary for the State to reach its objectives” and argued, unlike the first amendment.

In July, the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals voted unanimously and without explanation to freeze the injunction of the lower court, allowing the law to take the victory and prompted the request for the emergency of intervention of the Supreme Court.

Trial tracker: a new resistance which fights against Trump’s second term thanks to the assault of proceedings which aim at EOS

The judge of the Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh. (Reuters)

In his emergency call before the high court, the lawyers of Netchoice referred to the lack of explanation of the lower court.

“Neither Netchoice nor this court can know why the fifth circuit thought that this law satisfies strict requests from the first amendment or has dismissed from the other seven other decisions prohibiting similar laws,” said lawyers in their appeal before the High Court, claiming that they would be confronted with “immediately, irreparable” of injuries if the law was authorized to enter into force.

Click here to obtain the Fox News app

The Emergency Decision of the Supreme Court comes when a handful of other states have decided to implement legislation similar to age verification – including Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Ohio and UTAH.

Netchoice, for its part, has led similar prosecution contesting the legislation on social networks in other states such as Florida and Texas earlier this year.