Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton.
The Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of Texas H. B. 1181, which requires age verification for accessing sexually explicit content online. The Court applied intermediate scrutiny, determining that the law incidentally burdens adult speech rights while serving the state's interest in protecting minors. The decision affirmed the Fifth Circuit's ruling that the law is constitutional.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton.
The Court held that H. B. 1181 triggers, and survives, review under intermediate scrutiny because it only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Free Speech is relevant to Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
The case directly involves the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause, as it addresses whether a Texas law regulating access to sexually explicit content is constitutional.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Petitioners—representatives of the pornography industry—sued the Texas attorney general to enjoin enforcement of H. B. 1181 as facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause.
-
Why Substantive Due Process is relevant to Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
The case involves balancing the rights of adults to access certain speech against the state's interest in protecting minors, implicating substantive due process considerations.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)States may prevent minors from accessing such content, Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 637–638, but may not prevent adults from doing the same, Butler v. Michigan, 352 U. S. 380, 383.
-
Why State–Federal Power is relevant to Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
The case discusses the state's power to regulate access to content deemed obscene to minors, highlighting the allocation of authority between state and federal governments.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The First Amendment leaves undisturbed States' traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton that support the summary and concepts above.
H. B. 1181 triggers, and survives, review under intermediate scrutiny because it only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults.
H. B. 1181 furthers Texas's important interest in shielding children from sexual content and is adequately tailored to that interest.
Adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification.