After a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month, Florida and tech-industry groups could be poised to resume a legal battle about a 2021 state law aimed at placing restrictions on social-media platforms.
Attorneys for the groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which challenged the constitutionality of the law, have filed a motion at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that new briefs should be filed in light of the Supreme Court decision.
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle in 2021 issued a preliminary injunction to block the law (SB 7072) on First Amendment grounds, and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of Hinkle’s decision.
Florida took the case to the Supreme Court, which on July 1 vacated the appeals-court ruling and sent the lawsuit back for further consideration.
The Supreme Court did not resolve the constitutional issues but said the 11th Circuit and another appeals court in a similar Texas case did not properly consider the “facial nature” of challenges to the laws, a critical element in deciding whether they met constitutional muster.
“To make that judgment, a court must determine a law’s full set of applications, evaluate which are constitutional and which are not, and compare the one to the other. Neither court performed that necessary inquiry,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the main opinion.
The tech-industry groups, in the motion Friday at the 11th Circuit, argued that briefs should be filed “so that the parties can address the import of the Supreme Court’s decision, whether this (appeals) court can resolve the facial challenge on this record or whether a remand to the district court is necessary, and if so, whether the preliminary injunction should remain in effect pending any necessary further proceedings.”
“Indeed, the Supreme Court’s decision expressly contemplates additional proceedings in this court to determine in the first instance whether SB 7072 prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech relative to its plainly legitimate sweep,” attorneys for the groups wrote.
As of early Thursday afternoon, the state had not filed a response to the motion, according to an online docket. But attorneys for the tech-industry groups wrote that the state opposes the motion.
Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Republican-controlled Legislature passed the law after Facebook and Twitter, now known as X, blocked former President Donald Trump from their platforms after Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The law, in part, sought to limit the ability of social-media platforms such as Facebook and YouTube to moderate content on their sites. As examples of the disputed issues in the case, part of the law would prevent platforms from banning political candidates from their sites and require companies to publish — and apply consistently — standards about issues such as banning users or blocking their content.
The law seeks to regulate social-media platforms that have annual gross revenue of over $100 million or more than 100 million monthly active users. Companies could face steep penalties for violating restrictions in the law.
Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.
Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed
Attorneys for the groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which challenged the constitutionality of the law, have filed a motion at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that new briefs should be filed in light of the Supreme Court decision.
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle in 2021 issued a preliminary injunction to block the law (SB 7072) on First Amendment grounds, and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of Hinkle’s decision.
Florida took the case to the Supreme Court, which on July 1 vacated the appeals-court ruling and sent the lawsuit back for further consideration.
The Supreme Court did not resolve the constitutional issues but said the 11th Circuit and another appeals court in a similar Texas case did not properly consider the “facial nature” of challenges to the laws, a critical element in deciding whether they met constitutional muster.
“To make that judgment, a court must determine a law’s full set of applications, evaluate which are constitutional and which are not, and compare the one to the other. Neither court performed that necessary inquiry,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the main opinion.
The tech-industry groups, in the motion Friday at the 11th Circuit, argued that briefs should be filed “so that the parties can address the import of the Supreme Court’s decision, whether this (appeals) court can resolve the facial challenge on this record or whether a remand to the district court is necessary, and if so, whether the preliminary injunction should remain in effect pending any necessary further proceedings.”
“Indeed, the Supreme Court’s decision expressly contemplates additional proceedings in this court to determine in the first instance whether SB 7072 prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech relative to its plainly legitimate sweep,” attorneys for the groups wrote.
As of early Thursday afternoon, the state had not filed a response to the motion, according to an online docket. But attorneys for the tech-industry groups wrote that the state opposes the motion.
Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Republican-controlled Legislature passed the law after Facebook and Twitter, now known as X, blocked former President Donald Trump from their platforms after Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The law, in part, sought to limit the ability of social-media platforms such as Facebook and YouTube to moderate content on their sites. As examples of the disputed issues in the case, part of the law would prevent platforms from banning political candidates from their sites and require companies to publish — and apply consistently — standards about issues such as banning users or blocking their content.
The law seeks to regulate social-media platforms that have annual gross revenue of over $100 million or more than 100 million monthly active users. Companies could face steep penalties for violating restrictions in the law.
Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.
Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed
