A divided federal appeals court on Friday prevented Texas from enforcing a central element of a state statute aimed at protecting children from harmful content on social media.
In a 2-1 ruling, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans concluded that a broad federal immunity in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act displaces a Texas law requirement that social media operators actively monitor and filter material that "promotes, glorifies, or facilitates" a set of harmful behaviors. Those behaviors cited in the Texas statute include self-harm, suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, stalking, bullying, sexual abuse and other related conduct.
The provision at issue is part of the Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment Act, commonly referred to as the SCOPE Act and also known as Texas House Bill 18, which went into effect in September 2024. A federal district court had previously entered injunctions blocking certain portions of the law; the appeals court decision extends that bar for the monitoring and filtering requirement by finding federal law preempts the state mandate.
The appeals court, however, left intact a separate component of the Texas statute by upholding an age-verification requirement that had also been challenged in the litigation.
Circuit Judge Dana Douglas, writing for the majority, emphasized that Section 230 protects social media companies from civil liability for third-party content even though the statutory immunity may appear to some as a "get-out-of-jail-free card" shielding the industry from "all but the most egregious consequences" stemming from how their products operate.
"Section 230 protects social media companies from civil liability for user content," Circuit Judge Dana Douglas wrote in the decision.
The court also determined that Students Engaged in Advancing Texas, a nonprofit which had sued to block the law, lacked standing to pursue its claims.
Circuit Judge James Ho issued a partial dissent. He would have sustained the Texas law, stating that it "regulates curation, not publication - first-party speech, not third-party speech."
The outcome represented a court victory for industry trade organizations that had challenged the statute. The Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice — trade groups whose memberships include Amazon, Google and Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram — welcomed the ruling.
CCIA Chief Executive Matthew Schruers said the decision "confirmed that federal law bars Texas from impressing websites and services into the role of state censors."
Paul Taske, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, described the decision as "a win for every Texan who believes the government has no business deciding what they can read, watch and say online."
The office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who had defended the law in court, did not immediately provide a response to requests for comment. The article notes that Paxton is the Republican nominee for a U.S. Senate seat from Texas in the November election.
The litigation sits against a backdrop of repeated disputes between states and social media companies over the scope and effect of Section 230. The opinion references recent court activity elsewhere: in March, a different federal appeals court set aside much of an injunction that had prevented California from enforcing its California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act.
Legal commentary within the decision frames the central question as whether state law can compel social platforms to act as content monitors in ways that federal immunity law prohibits. The 5th Circuit majority concluded Section 230 preempts the Texas monitoring and filtering mandate, while also preserving an age-verification obligation and finding limits on who may sue to block the law.
Summary: The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling, preempted Texas from enforcing a mandate that social media platforms monitor and filter categories of harmful content under the SCOPE Act, citing Section 230. The court upheld an age-verification rule and found one challenger lacked standing.