On August 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to block the enforcement of Mississippi’s new social media law, a move that has ignited a heated debate about online safety, free speech, and the reach of government regulation in the digital age. The law, formally known as the Walker Montgomery Protecting Children Online Act (HB 1126), mandates that social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, and others verify the age of all users and obtain parental consent before allowing minors to open accounts.
The Supreme Court’s decision—delivered with no noted dissents and accompanied by a concurring statement from Justice Brett Kavanaugh—means the law will remain in effect while a broader legal challenge led by NetChoice, a trade group representing major tech companies, continues to work its way through the courts. The justices’ brief, unsigned order leaves Mississippi’s requirements in place for now, even as questions linger about the law’s constitutionality.
NetChoice, whose members include tech giants like Meta (the parent company of Facebook and Instagram), Google (which owns YouTube), Snap Inc. (Snapchat), Reddit, Nextdoor, X, and Pinterest, has been at the forefront of the legal opposition. The group argues that the Mississippi law not only threatens the privacy rights of users but also unconstitutionally restricts free expression for people of all ages. As reported by the Associated Press and Reuters, NetChoice maintains that the law goes too far, burdening protected speech and setting a dangerous precedent for government interference online.
Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant emergency relief. In a statement quoted by multiple outlets, Taske said, “Although we’re disappointed with the Court’s decision, Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed in defending the First Amendment—not just in this case but across all NetChoice’s ID-for-Speech lawsuits.”
Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion, while allowing the law to remain in effect for now, acknowledged the strength of NetChoice’s constitutional arguments. “NetChoice has, in my view, demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on the merits—namely, that enforcement of the Mississippi law would likely violate its members’ First Amendment rights under this Court’s precedents,” Kavanaugh wrote, as cited by Biometric Update and AP. However, he concluded that NetChoice had not “sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time.”
The law’s supporters, including Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, argue that these measures are necessary to protect children from a range of online dangers. Fitch told the justices that age verification could help shield young people from “sexual abuse, trafficking, physical violence, sextortion and more”—activities she emphasized are not protected by the First Amendment. Her office welcomed the Supreme Court’s order, stating that it “permits thoughtful consideration of these important issues,” according to Reuters and AP.
The origins of the law lie in mounting concerns about the impact of social media on minors. Lawmakers in Mississippi passed HB 1126 unanimously in 2024, citing alarming incidents such as the suicide of a 16-year-old following a sextortion attempt on Instagram. Proponents of the law point to a broader pattern: rising rates of depression and anxiety among young people, which many researchers and parents believe are linked to excessive or unsafe social media use. The law is among the nation’s more stringent online safety measures, requiring all users—not just children—to verify their ages before accessing social media platforms, and imposing civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation, as well as potential criminal penalties under Mississippi’s deceptive trade practices law.
NetChoice and its allies, however, warn of unintended consequences. They argue that the law’s broad language could restrict not only minors’ access to harmful content but also adults’ ability to engage in lawful, protected speech. According to The Economic Times and NPR, NetChoice claims that such regulations could open the door to further government censorship, especially as definitions of “harmful content” can be politicized. Jess Miers, a visiting assistant professor of law at the University of Akron, told The Tennessean, “Once the door has been opened for regulating one type of content… that door is cracked open for any other kinds of content that the government wants to touch.”
The Mississippi law is not alone. NetChoice has filed similar lawsuits in other states, including Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, and Utah, as reported by AP. Courts in at least seven states have preliminarily or permanently blocked comparable measures, reflecting a patchwork of legal standards and ongoing uncertainty about the future of digital age verification laws in the United States.
The debate isn’t confined to the courtroom. The rollout of digital age-check laws has sparked broader cultural and political battles, with privacy advocates, free speech defenders, and ideological groups all weighing in. Some conservative organizations, such as the Heritage Foundation, have openly supported such laws as tools to combat what they consider the “evils of pornography.” In a 2024 statement, the Foundation’s Emma Waters said, “Republicans and engaged Christians must prioritize laws that protect minors—and all people—from the harms of pornography.” Critics, meanwhile, warn that these efforts risk overreach, potentially blocking access to legitimate resources, including those related to LGBTQ issues or even certain educational content, if deemed “harmful” by political actors.
Beyond policy debates, the practical implications for tech companies and users are immense. Social platforms have already begun to adjust their policies, rolling out additional parental controls and content moderation tools. However, as NetChoice points out, these companies believe they already have “extensive policies to moderate content for minors and provide parental controls,” and argue that the new law is redundant and overly restrictive.
As the legal challenge proceeds, the stakes remain high for families, tech companies, and lawmakers alike. The Supreme Court’s decision to let the law stand for now is only the latest chapter in a national conversation about how best to balance children’s safety, privacy, and freedom of expression in a rapidly evolving online world. Whether Mississippi’s law will survive the full scrutiny of the courts remains to be seen, but for now, the state’s experiment with digital age verification is very much underway.
With the legal fight far from over, all eyes are on the next moves from both NetChoice and state officials, as the outcome could set a lasting precedent for how America navigates the intersection of technology, childhood, and constitutional rights in the digital era.
