{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiggrdurer7qwgfhqcjsp2xzqo45hff7mbqihlhjubunxemk3xpr5a",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:mg5ozsljpp6t5b4lvwys4t72/app.bsky.feed.post/3ln46bqvwlko2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreifmgbylnnjuia24naj2kyzlh36tmnug6ohaelvjga4f7qwxyc6pbm"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
    "size": 31565
  },
  "description": "Fifth Circuit orders deeper review of the law’s First Amendment impact.",
  "path": "/mississippi-online-age-verification-law-sent-back-to-lower-court-for-review/",
  "publishedAt": "2025-04-18T17:43:44.000Z",
  "site": "https://broadbandbreakfast.com",
  "tags": [
    "_its ruling_",
    "_Mississippi House Bill 1126_",
    "just one day after",
    "_in a statement_",
    "_said at that time that_",
    "_a broader legal campaign_",
    "_in Arkansas_",
    "_in Utah_",
    "_obtained a preliminary injunction_"
  ],
  "textContent": "WASHINGTON, April 18, 2025 – First it was blocked. Now it’s being reconsidered. A Mississippi law that would require websites to verify users’ age and obtain parental consent before minors can use social media and other online platforms is back on the table, after a federal appeals court said the judge who paused it didn’t follow new legal guidelines.\n\nThe Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued _its ruling_ Thursday, declining to weigh in on the law’s constitutionality but finding that the lower court, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, failed to apply the proper legal test set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in _Moody v. NetChoice,_ and sent the case back for further factual analysis.\n\nThe law at the center of the case, _Mississippi House Bill 1126_, was signed in April 2024 and originally set to take effect July 1 of that year.\n\nIn addition to requiring age verification and parental consent, the law would also limit the types of personal data platforms can collect from minors and mandate that websites take steps to block or filter content deemed harmful. Violations could result in civil penalties or criminal charges.\n\nNetChoice, a tech industry group representing companies like Tiktok, Snapchat, Meta, Airbnb and PayPal, sued the state last year, in _NetChoice v. Fitch_ , arguing the law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Fifth Circuit's ruling comes just one day after a major win for NetChoice in Ohio, where a federal judge permanently struck down that state’s age verification law in _NetChoice v. Yost._\n\nIn its opinion, with Judge**Patrick Higginbotham** writing for the panel, which also included Judges **Don Willett** and **James Ho** , the Fifth Circuit wrote: “ _Moody_ makes clear that the district court here should have undertaken more detailed factual analysis before making the requisite finding for preliminary injunctive relief that NetChoice, L.L.C is substantially likely to succeed on the merits of its facial challenge. We in turn VACATE the preliminary injunction and REMAND this case to the district court for the required factual analysis.”\n\n###  _The Moody test_\n\nThe Supreme Court’s _Moody v. NetChoice_ decision, issued in July 2024, raised the bar for facial challenges to speech laws under the First Amendment. Under that framework, courts must follow a two-step analysis:\n\nFirst, they must determine exactly who and what the law regulates, including platforms are affected and what kind of user activity is covered. Second, they must assess how many of the law’s applications violate the First Amendment, and compare that to the law’s legitimate uses. A law is only facially unconstitutional if its unconstitutional applications “substantially outweigh” its constitutional ones.\n\n“In First Amendment cases, [the Supreme Court has] lowered that very high bar. To provide breathing room for free expression, we have substituted a less demanding though still rigorous standard,” the Fifth Circuit wrote.\n\n### _NetChoice reaction to decision_\n\nNetChoice said it is “disappointed” in the Fifth Circuit’s ruling but isn’t backing down.\n\n“NetChoice will continue to fiercely defend free expression and free enterprise online, and remain confident the law will not stand,” said **Paul Taske** , NetChoice associate director of litigation, _in a statement_.\n\n“Parents and guardians – not politicians – should have authority over their children,” NetChoice said in a statement.\n\nNetChoice sued Mississippi in June 2024 over the law, warning that the law’s vague and sweeping language could lead to the unintended censorship of a wide range of lawful content.\n\nThe group _said at that time that_ “vast amount[s] of speech could be unintentionally censored online under the vague requirements of the government,” including material as varied as “the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Sherlock Holmes, The Goonies, the National Treasure movie series featuring Nicholas Cage, Taylor Swift’s new album, and much more.”\n\nThe Mississippi case is part of _a broader legal campaign_ by NetChoice to push back against state-level efforts to regulate online platforms. Just one day before the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, a federal judge in _NetChoice v. Yost_ permanently struck down Ohio’s age verification law, declaring it unconstitutional.\n\n“The decision confirms that the First Amendment protects both websites’ right to disseminate content and Americans’ right to engage with protected speech online,” said **Chris Marchese** , NetChoice’s director of litigation. “NetChoice’s victory in Ohio joins federal courts nationwide in finding age verification and barriers to lawful information unconstitutional.”\n\nNetChoice also prevailed _in Arkansas_ last month, where it secured a permanent injunction against that state’s social media age-verification law. And _in Utah_, NetChoice _obtained a preliminary injunction_ against the state’s social media regulation act in September 2024. That case is now pending before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.",
  "title": "Mississippi Online Age Verification Law Sent Back to Lower Court for Review",
  "updatedAt": "2026-03-11T03:30:49.996Z"
}