## Facts

- In 2021, Texas enacted House Bill 20 (HB20), regulating publicly accessible social-media platforms with at least 50 million active U.S. users in a calendar month.
- Section 7 of HB20 barred covered platforms from “censoring” users based on viewpoint; “censor” was defined broadly to include blocking, banning, removing, deplatforming, demonetizing, deboosting, or restricting expression.
- Section 2 of HB20 imposed disclosure duties on covered platforms, including publishing acceptable-use policies and issuing biannual transparency reports.
- HB20 also required covered platforms to provide procedures allowing users to appeal a platform decision to remove the user’s content.
- NetChoice, LLC and the Computer & Communications Industry Association—trade associations representing major social-media platforms covered by HB20—filed a preenforcement facial challenge in federal district court against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
- NetChoice argued, among other things, that HB20 violated the First Amendment by interfering with platforms’ editorial discretion, including a claimed right to decline to disseminate speech created by others.
- The federal district court agreed that NetChoice was likely to succeed on its First Amendment claim and entered a preliminary injunction barring Texas from enforcing HB20.
- Texas appealed. After briefing and argument, the Fifth Circuit stayed the district court’s preliminary injunction pending appeal, which would have allowed HB20 to take effect during the appeal.
- NetChoice filed an emergency application in the Supreme Court seeking to vacate the Fifth Circuit’s stay and restore the district court’s injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court should vacate the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction that blocked enforcement of Texas HB20 while the appeal proceeded.
2. Whether applicants seeking that relief satisfied the standards for emergency stay relief, including showing a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm absent relief.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court granted the application to vacate the stay.
- The Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s order staying the district court’s preliminary injunction.
- As a result, the district court’s preliminary injunction again barred Texas from enforcing HB20 while the Fifth Circuit appeal continued.
- The order did not resolve the merits of HB20’s constitutionality and contained no majority reasoning.
- Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, arguing that the applicants had not shown entitlement to the extraordinary relief granted.
- Justice Kagan noted separately that she would deny the application to vacate the stay.

## Legal Principles

- Vacatur of a stay is extraordinary relief; the applicant must satisfy traditional stay factors, including a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and equitable considerations.
- An order granting or denying emergency relief pending appeal is interlocutory and does not finally decide the underlying First Amendment challenge.
- In this case, the Court’s unsigned order provided no written explanation; the only written analysis in the Supreme Court record at this stage was in the dissent.
- A stay order in this posture primarily determines whether a challenged law may be enforced during ongoing appellate proceedings, not whether the law is valid.

## Conclusion

NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton (2022) is a Supreme Court emergency-relief order, not a merits decision: the Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s stay and reinstated the district court’s preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement of Texas HB20 while the appeal continued, with a dissent by Justice Alito (joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch) and a separate note by Justice Kagan that she would deny relief.


NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, 142 S. Ct. 1715 (2022)