On August 19, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court made headlines by refusing to block a Mississippi law that restricts social media access for minors, despite widespread constitutional concerns and a heated national debate. The law, known as House Bill 1126 or the Walker Montgomery Protecting Children Online Act, is one of the most sweeping attempts by a state to regulate how young people interact with digital platforms. It requires age verification for users, mandates parental consent for minors, and imposes steep fines and even criminal penalties for companies that fail to comply. The Supreme Court’s decision, delivered via the so-called "shadow docket," leaves the law in effect while legal battles continue, raising questions about the future of online freedoms and child safety in the digital age.
The case, Netchoice, LLC v. Lynn Fitch, drew national attention not just for its subject matter but for the way it reached the nation’s highest court. The emergency docket—sometimes called the shadow docket—has become an increasingly common venue for major decisions, often delivered in unsigned, unexplained orders. According to reporting from The Christian Post and FindLaw, the shadow docket ruling issued on August 14, 2025, denied an application to vacate a stay, meaning Mississippi’s law would remain enforceable as the case proceeds through the courts.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a rare concurring opinion, acknowledged the high stakes and the likelihood that the law runs afoul of the First Amendment. "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. But he added a crucial caveat: "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." In other words, while the Court may ultimately find the law unconstitutional, the justices were not convinced that blocking it immediately was warranted.
House Bill 1126, which took effect on July 1, 2024, was passed in response to growing concerns over the dangers young people face online. The law is named after Walker Montgomery, a Mississippi teenager who died by suicide following an online sextortion scam—a tragedy that galvanized lawmakers to act. The legislation requires digital service providers to verify the age of users and bans minors from creating certain social media accounts unless parents have explicitly granted permission. Social media platforms are also required to limit the personal information they collect from minors, and they are strictly prohibited from tracking minors’ exact locations.
But it doesn’t stop there. The law compels platforms to "make commercially reasonable efforts to develop and implement a strategy to prevent or mitigate the known minor's exposure to harmful material and other content that promotes or facilitates...harms to minors." Failure to comply carries hefty consequences: fines of up to $10,000 per violation and potential criminal penalties. The law’s reach is broad, targeting major social media sites such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter (now X), and Snapchat. However, it notably exempts sites devoted to sports, news, commerce, or video games—a carve-out that some critics argue creates a significant loophole, especially considering concerns about predators on gaming platforms like Roblox.
Supporters of the law, including many Mississippi legislators and child safety advocates, argue that it is a necessary response to the real harms facing children in today’s digital world. They point to high-profile cases of online bullying, exploitation, and the mental health crisis among teens as evidence that stronger protections are overdue. The law’s namesake, Walker Montgomery, has become a symbol for these advocates, who see the legislation as a way to honor his memory and prevent future tragedies.
Yet, the law has faced fierce opposition from civil liberties groups, tech companies, and digital rights advocates. NetChoice, a trade association representing social media giants, quickly filed suit to block the law, arguing that it violates the First Amendment by limiting free expression and imposing undue burdens on both users and companies. In June 2025, U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden granted NetChoice a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, halting enforcement of the law. Judge Ozerden reasoned that Mississippi could pursue less restrictive means to protect children online, rather than imposing sweeping limitations on speech and access.
But that victory was short-lived. In July 2025, a three-judge panel from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the district court’s injunction, reinstating the law pending appeal. The Supreme Court’s August ruling effectively upheld the Fifth Circuit’s decision, a notable shift given that, as FindLaw points out, the Supreme Court had reversed ten of the previous twelve cases from that circuit.
The case has become a flashpoint in the larger debate over how—and whether—states can regulate the digital lives of young people. Proponents of the law argue it’s about protecting children from real dangers and giving parents more control over their kids’ online experiences. "We have a responsibility to ensure our children are safe," said one Mississippi lawmaker during debate over the bill, echoing a sentiment shared by many across the country.
Opponents, however, warn of unintended consequences. They argue that the law’s requirements could chill free speech, create privacy risks by forcing companies to collect more personal information for age verification, and set a dangerous precedent for government overreach. NetChoice’s lawsuit leans heavily on Supreme Court precedent, which has generally favored broad First Amendment protections for online platforms and their users.
The Supreme Court’s use of the shadow docket in this case has also drawn criticism. Emergency docket decisions are typically unsigned and lack detailed explanations, making it difficult for the public to understand the justices’ reasoning. As FindLaw reports, the number of cases handled on the shadow docket has surged in recent years, with over 112 such orders so far this term alone—a trend that many legal observers find troubling.
What happens next? For now, Mississippi’s law remains in effect, and social media companies must comply or risk severe penalties. The case is likely to return to the Supreme Court for full consideration on the merits, potentially setting a national precedent for how far states can go in regulating minors’ access to online platforms. Similar laws in other states have been blocked, suggesting that the issue is far from settled.
As the legal saga continues, parents, tech companies, and young people across the country are watching closely. The outcome could reshape the digital landscape for America’s youth, balancing the urgent need for safety with the enduring values of free expression and privacy. For now, Mississippi stands at the center of a debate that is sure to echo far beyond its borders.
