On August 14, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to block—for now—a Mississippi law requiring age verification and parental consent for minors to use social media platforms, an action that has reignited the national debate over the balance between child safety and free speech online. The law, passed unanimously by the Mississippi state legislature in 2024, mandates that social media companies make “commercially reasonable” efforts to verify users’ ages and obtain “express consent” from parents or guardians before allowing minors to open accounts. Civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation, as well as potential criminal charges under Mississippi’s deceptive trade practices law, underscore the seriousness with which the state is approaching enforcement.
The decision came after the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a hold on the law on July 17, 2025, allowing it to take effect while its constitutionality is debated in lower courts. U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden had previously blocked the law, arguing it likely violated the First Amendment and was too broad, but the appellate court’s brief, unexplained order reversed his pause. According to USA TODAY, the Supreme Court didn’t elaborate on its reasons for denying the emergency request to halt enforcement. However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring statement, noting that while the law is “likely unconstitutional,” NetChoice—the tech industry trade group challenging the law—had not demonstrated that letting it be enforced during ongoing litigation would cause “sufficient harm.”
NetChoice, whose members include Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, Alphabet’s YouTube, Reddit, X, and Snapchat, has been at the forefront of legal battles over similar legislation nationwide. The group sued in federal court in 2024, contending that Mississippi’s law violates the U.S. Constitution’s protections against government abridgement of free speech, particularly those enshrined in the First Amendment. Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene immediately, calling it “an unfortunate procedural delay.” Yet, Taske found some solace in Justice Kavanaugh’s comments, saying, “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.”
Mississippi officials, on the other hand, welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, viewing it as a necessary step to protect children from online dangers. According to a spokesperson for Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, the state is “grateful for the Court’s decision to leave Mississippi’s law in effect while the case proceeds in a way that permits thoughtful consideration of these important issues.” The state’s attorneys have argued that the law is a targeted effort to regulate social media platforms that allow predators to interact with children, and that it only requires what “any responsible covered platform would already do.”
The urgency behind the law was amplified by a tragic incident: a 16-year-old Mississippi boy took his own life after someone he met on Instagram threatened to expose their sexual encounter unless he paid $1,000. State officials cited this case as a catalyst for the legislation, arguing that without stronger safeguards, minors remain vulnerable to exploitation and abuse online. They also pointed to the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision upholding Texas’ age verification law for pornographic websites as a precedent for similar regulatory efforts.
NetChoice, however, maintains that the law’s requirements are overbroad and infringe on the rights of both adults and minors. The group contends that “social media is the modern printing press—it allows all Americans to share their thoughts and perspectives,” as Paul Taske told USA TODAY. He further argued, “Just as the government can’t force you to provide identification to read a newspaper, the same holds true when that news is available online.” NetChoice also emphasizes that its member platforms already have extensive policies in place to moderate content for minors and provide robust parental controls, rendering the law unnecessary and burdensome.
According to Reuters, the Mississippi law is not unique; courts in seven other states have preliminarily or permanently blocked similar measures, often on First Amendment grounds. Despite this, a wave of state-level legislation has emerged in recent years, driven by growing concerns among lawmakers and parents about the potential negative effects of social media use on children’s mental health. The debate has grown particularly heated as technology companies face lawsuits from states, school districts, and individual users, alleging that social platforms have fueled mental health problems among young people—a charge the companies deny.
Mississippi’s law requires social media platforms to obtain express parental consent before a minor can create an account, and to make “commercially reasonable” efforts to verify a user’s age. These requirements, the state argues, are “common ways for states to protect minors.” The law’s supporters believe that such measures are essential for shielding children from online predators and harmful content, especially given the limitations of existing platform-based protections.
On the other side, tech companies and digital rights advocates warn that mandatory age verification could undermine privacy and chill free expression. They argue that requiring all users—including adults—to provide personal information to access social media could set a dangerous precedent, stifle dissent, and create barriers for marginalized communities. The analogy to requiring ID to read a newspaper, as Taske noted, is particularly resonant for those concerned about government overreach into online speech.
Justice Kavanaugh’s statement offers a glimpse of the legal hurdles Mississippi’s law may ultimately face. By acknowledging that the law is “likely unconstitutional,” he signaled that the Supreme Court could strike it down if the case returns at a later stage. Yet, for now, the law remains in effect, and social media companies must comply or risk significant penalties.
For parents and children in Mississippi, the immediate impact is tangible. Minors will need parental approval to sign up for new social media accounts, and adults may be asked to provide additional information to verify their age. The law’s enforcement mechanism, which includes both civil and criminal penalties, signals a new era of state intervention in the digital lives of young people.
The broader implications of the Supreme Court’s decision could ripple beyond Mississippi. As more states consider similar laws—and as tech companies mount legal challenges—the boundaries of online free speech, privacy, and child safety will continue to be tested in courtrooms across the country. The outcome of NetChoice’s ongoing legal battle will likely set important precedents for how American society navigates the competing demands of protecting children and preserving constitutional rights in the digital age.
With the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene for now, the debate over age verification, parental consent, and the future of online speech is set to intensify, with Mississippi at the center of a national reckoning over how best to keep children safe while respecting fundamental freedoms.