The Supreme Court’s decision on August 14, 2025, to allow a Mississippi law requiring age verification and parental consent for minors to access social media platforms to take effect has set off a wave of debate and legal uncertainty, as advocates, tech companies, and parents across the nation grapple with the implications. The law, which targets popular sites such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), Reddit, Snapchat, and Nextdoor, is part of a larger national movement to regulate young people’s access to digital spaces amid mounting concerns about their well-being and safety online.
The Mississippi statute, enacted in 2024, mandates that all users verify their age before accessing social media. For those under 18, parental consent is now a prerequisite to participate on these platforms. The law also requires companies to make “reasonable efforts” to prevent minors from exposure to harmful content and imposes steep penalties—up to $10,000 per violation—on platforms that fail to comply. In addition, the law carves out exemptions for websites primarily focused on news, sports, commerce, video games, email, or direct messaging, reflecting lawmakers’ intent to focus on spaces designed for broad social interaction.
Supporters of the law, including Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, argue that these measures are urgently needed. Fitch told the Supreme Court that the law “protects children from predators,” adding, “The internet provides a forum for inflicting life-altering harms on children—sex trafficking, sexual abuse, physical violence, grooming, targeted harassment and more.” She emphasized that such dangers are not protected by the First Amendment and that the law’s requirements are “modest duties on interactive online platforms that are especially attractive to predators.” According to the Associated Press, Fitch’s office expressed gratitude for the Supreme Court’s decision and hopes the case will continue “in a way that permits thoughtful consideration of these important issues.”
Parents and many teenagers have become increasingly concerned about the impact of social media on young people’s mental health, with researchers highlighting links between heavy social media use and rising rates of depression and anxiety. Lawmakers in Mississippi and elsewhere have cited these findings as a driving force behind new regulations, seeking to curb what they see as the “explosive use of social media among young people,” as reported by the Associated Press.
Yet the law’s opponents, led by the tech industry group NetChoice, see things very differently. Representing a coalition of major technology companies—including Meta (which owns Facebook and Instagram), Google (YouTube), Snap Inc. (Snapchat), and others—NetChoice argues that the Mississippi law tramples on constitutional protections. The group contends that the law “threatens privacy rights and unconstitutionally restricts the free expression of users of all ages.” In court filings, NetChoice’s lawyers warned that the restrictions “force companies to effectively censor speech because users who are either unwilling to verify their age or cannot get parental approval will not be able to engage in otherwise protected speech.”
NetChoice’s challenge is not isolated to Mississippi. The group has filed similar lawsuits against age verification and parental consent laws in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, and Utah, and noted that seven other courts have blocked comparable statutes. In Mississippi, a federal district judge initially sided with NetChoice, blocking the law from taking effect and ruling that it appeared to “apply to substantially more speech than is necessary for the state to accomplish its goals.” Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden, appointed by President George W. Bush, recognized the “important governmental interest” in protecting minors but concluded that the law’s scope was overly broad.
However, the legal landscape shifted in July 2025, when a unanimous three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted Judge Ozerden’s injunction, allowing Mississippi’s law to take effect in full. The panel’s order was just one sentence long and did not provide a rationale, leaving many observers guessing about the court’s reasoning. NetChoice quickly sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, but the justices, in a brief unsigned order with no noted dissents, refused to block the law while the lawsuit proceeds. The Supreme Court’s decision is not final—the case will continue to move through the appellate courts and could return to the high court for a definitive ruling.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing a separate concurring opinion, offered a glimpse into the Court’s thinking. He acknowledged that NetChoice “demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on the merits” in ultimately proving the law unconstitutional. However, he concluded that the group “had not shown the need to block the law at an early stage of the litigation.” Kavanaugh wrote, “In short, under this Court’s case law as it currently stands, the Mississippi law is likely unconstitutional. Nonetheless, because NetChoice has not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time, I concur in the Court’s denial of the application for interim relief.”
The legal arguments in play draw heavily on recent Supreme Court precedents. In 2011, the Court struck down a California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority that states did not have “the power to prevent children from hearing or saying anything without their parents’ prior consent.” More recently, in June 2025, the Court upheld a Texas law requiring age verification to access pornographic websites, finding that such measures did not violate the First Amendment because of the unique nature of the content—distinguishing it from the broader speech protected on social media platforms. Justice Elena Kagan, writing in 2024, affirmed that “laws curtailing their editorial choices must meet the First Amendment’s requirements,” and that the principle “does not change because the curated compilation has gone from the physical to the virtual world.”
Mississippi’s law, however, is broader than the Texas statute. It does not just target explicit material but covers all social media interactions, requiring verification for every user and parental consent for every minor. NetChoice argues that this “monitoring-and-censorship requirement for vague categories of speech” could limit access to a vast array of content, from university lectures to political statements and creative works. The group also points out that parents already have tools—like web browser parental controls—to manage their children’s online experiences, suggesting that the law’s sweeping approach is unnecessary and potentially harmful to free expression.
As the legal battle continues, the stakes are high. Mississippi’s law is one of a dozen similar measures passed or proposed across the country, reflecting a broader struggle over how best to balance children’s safety, parental authority, privacy, and free speech in the digital age. The Supreme Court’s decision to let the law take effect, at least temporarily, ensures that these questions will remain front and center in public debate and judicial review for months, if not years, to come.
For now, Mississippi’s age verification and parental consent law stands as a pivotal test case—a flashpoint in the ongoing contest between state governments determined to protect children and tech companies fighting to preserve open access and free expression online.
