Two high-stakes legal battles are playing out in state supreme courts this week, both with the potential to reshape the landscape of American law and society. In Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments in a closely watched case that could redefine the limits of internet company immunity in social media addiction lawsuits. Meanwhile, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed to take up a challenge to the legality of local jails holding immigrants at the request of federal authorities, bypassing lower courts to fast-track a decision that could reverberate far beyond state lines.
On December 5, 2025, all eyes were on Boston as justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court considered whether Meta Platforms—the tech giant behind Instagram—should be immune from lawsuits alleging that it designed its platform to addict young users. According to Bloomberg Law, the case, Commonwealth v. Meta Platforms, Inc., marks the first time a state high court has reviewed Meta’s claim of protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the context of social media addiction. The stakes are enormous: a decision narrowing the reach of Section 230 could expose Meta to tens of billions of dollars in damages and force a fundamental rethink of how internet companies operate.
Section 230, sometimes called “the 26 words that created the internet,” shields website operators from liability for content posted by third parties. Historically, courts have interpreted this protection broadly, granting tech companies wide latitude to host user-generated content without fear of endless lawsuits. But as Eric Goldman of Santa Clara University’s High Tech Law Institute put it, “If the plaintiffs make any progress, they’re going to structurally change the internet and almost certainly shrink it.” Goldman, who supports a broad reading of Section 230, called the rise of social media addiction litigation “one of several existential threats to the internet.”
The Massachusetts case was brought by Attorney General Andrea Campbell, who alleges that Meta deliberately engineered Instagram to keep young people hooked. The complaint targets features like incessant notifications, infinite scroll, autoplay videos, ephemeral posts, and unpredictable rewards—design choices that, the state argues, exploit vulnerabilities in adolescent brains. Campbell’s office further claims Meta deceived the public about the dangers of excessive Instagram use for youth.
Meta, for its part, contends that all Instagram content comes from users, and that without this content, “no one would use it, nor could possibly claim that they were addicted to the service.” The company also claims that the lawsuit’s focus on Instagram’s design runs afoul of the First Amendment, and that Section 230 should protect it from such claims. But the trial court saw things differently, ruling that the heart of the case concerns Meta’s own conduct—not just its role as a content host. This distinction is crucial, as it could open the door for more lawsuits targeting the ways platforms are built, rather than just what appears on them.
The legal landscape is anything but settled. As Bloomberg Law notes, “Every case is a bit of a test case, and different courts and different circuits are deciding things differently,” said Elettra Bietti of Northeastern University School of Law, who supports a more limited view of Section 230. Recent rulings have only added to the confusion. In Nevada last month, the state supreme court allowed challenges to TikTok’s platform safety statements and feature design, while a federal court in California took a “nuanced” approach, granting immunity for some social media features but not others.
Massachusetts’ own high court previously denied Section 230 immunity to car-sharing company Turo in a 2021 case, finding that Turo’s advertising and direct involvement in rental transactions made it more than just a neutral platform. Legal observers are now watching to see if Meta’s deep involvement in Instagram’s creation and management will lead to a similar outcome.
David Mackey, a partner at Anderson Kreiger who argued the Turo case, said it will be “interesting to see whether Meta’s role in its creation and management of Instagram gets a similar treatment.” Eric Goldman added that the lower court’s brief rationale for allowing a public nuisance claim against Meta “changed how I teach internet law,” underscoring how groundbreaking the decision could be. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling is pending, with the potential to set a precedent that will echo across the tech industry and the courts for years to come.
Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, a different kind of legal drama is unfolding—one with profound implications for immigration enforcement and the rights of detainees. On December 3, 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, controlled 4-3 by liberal justices, agreed to hear an original action brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of Voces de la Frontera, an immigrant rights group based in Milwaukee. The case challenges the legality of local sheriffs holding immigrant detainees at the request of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The lawsuit, filed in September against sheriffs in Walworth, Brown, Marathon, Kenosha, and Sauk counties, argues that it is illegal for local jails to honor ICE detainers—requests to hold individuals for up to 48 hours beyond their scheduled release so federal agents can take custody. The ACLU contends that these detainers are based on administrative, not judicial, warrants, and that holding someone past their release date amounts to an unlawful new arrest under Wisconsin law. “This is a historic step toward ensuring that Wisconsin’s law protects all residents, not just those with power and privilege,” said Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera. “Honoring ICE detainers has subjected hardworking immigrants to unlawful arrests for far too long.”
Sam Hall, an attorney representing the sheriffs, responded that they “are confident, however, that Wisconsin sheriffs who honor ICE detainers do so fully within the bounds of Wisconsin law and the federal legal framework governing immigration enforcement.” The sheriffs had argued that the complex interplay between federal and state law meant the case should have started in lower courts, but the state’s highest court opted to take it up directly. All briefs are due within two months, with oral arguments expected early in 2026 and a final decision likely by mid-year.
The case comes at a time of heightened immigration enforcement across the country, with high-profile ICE operations in cities like Chicago and Charlotte, and another expected soon in Minnesota targeting Somali immigrants. According to the lawsuit, ICE sent over 700 detainer requests to Wisconsin jails in the first seven months of 2025 alone. The legal challenge is unfolding against a backdrop of political tension: Republicans in the Wisconsin Legislature have advanced a bill to withhold funds from counties that refuse to honor ICE detainers, though Democratic Governor Tony Evers is likely to veto the measure if it reaches his desk.
The outcome of the Wisconsin Supreme Court case could set a powerful precedent for how state and local authorities interact with federal immigration agencies—and for the rights of immigrants across the country. Both the Meta and Wisconsin cases are being closely watched by legal experts, policymakers, and advocates, as they may signal major shifts in how American courts interpret the responsibilities and limits of powerful institutions, from tech giants to local law enforcement.
As both courts deliberate, the nation waits for rulings that could reshape the boundaries of digital innovation and civil liberties for years to come.
