Supreme Court expected to rule on Texas porn age verification law
WASHINGTON (KXAN) – The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the coming days on whether Texas can require pornographic websites to verify users' ages, a case that could reshape online speech protections and affect similar laws in more than 20 states.
The justices heard arguments in January over Texas House Bill 1181, which requires websites with content 'harmful to minors' to check government-issued IDs before allowing access. The law carries fines up to $10,000 per violation, rising to $250,000 if minors are involved.
At the heart of Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is a fundamental constitutional question: What legal standard should courts use when evaluating laws that restrict adults' access to protected speech in the name of protecting children?
The adult entertainment industry argues the law violates the First Amendment by burdening adults' access to legal content and eliminating their anonymity online. Texas counters that age verification is a reasonable way to protect minors, similar to laws preventing alcohol sales to children.
The case has already had real-world impact. Pornhub, one of the world's most popular adult sites, blocked Texas users rather than comply with the identification requirements.
A federal judge initially blocked the law, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the age verification portion to take effect. The appeals court applied 'rational basis review,' the most lenient constitutional standard, reasoning that laws protecting children need only be reasonable.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton defended the law as protecting children. 'We are not going to lose,' Paxton told reporters in January. 'We are going to have the right to enforce this.'
The Free Speech Coalition, a trade association for the adult industry, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that courts should apply 'strict scrutiny' — the most demanding standard — because the law restricts content-based speech.
The group points to the court's 2004 decision in Ashcroft v. ACLU, where justices struck down a federal law requiring age verification for websites with content 'harmful to children.'
The decision will affect similar age verification laws enacted in states including Louisiana, Utah, Virginia and Arkansas. By one count, 23 states passed such measures in 2023 and 2024.
Civil liberties groups warn the laws expose adults to privacy risks and could set precedent for broader internet restrictions. Child safety advocates support the measures as necessary protections in the digital age.
The Court will be issuing opinions throughout the month of June, before their summer recess. The next term for the Supreme Court starts in October.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court Fans Fear of State Patchwork in Birthright Citizenship
(Bloomberg) -- A US Supreme Court ruling is stoking fears that the babies of many noncitizen parents could be treated differently depending on the state in which they're born, as legal challenges unfold against President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship. Philadelphia Transit System Votes to Cut Service by 45%, Hike Fares US Renters Face Storm of Rising Costs Squeezed by Crowds, the Roads of Central Park Are Being Reimagined Sprawl Is Still Not the Answer Mapping the Architectural History of New York's Chinatown The justices didn't rule on the constitutionality of Trump's restrictions. But in a divided decision Friday, they paused nationwide injunctions in three cases that had blocked the policy from taking effect. That opens a potential path for Trump's ban on birthright citizenship to be enforced in the 28 states where no court order to block it is currently in place, many of them Republican strongholds from Texas to Florida and Wyoming to Oklahoma. State officials and legal experts warn the arrangement could lead to a patchwork quilt of outcomes, in which the children of people in the US unlawfully or on temporary visas would be recognized as citizens in some states but not in others. 'What we have is an unworkable mess that will leave thousands of babies in an untenable legal limbo,' said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who joined officials from 21 other Democratic-led states in suing to block the order. 'Will babies born in Connecticut have different citizenship rights than those born in Texas or Florida?' Nothing will change immediately — the justices said Trump's restrictions can't take effect for 30 days. Much will be in flux during that period as lower courts revise their rulings to align with the new precedent set by the high court. Justices also left open an avenue for opponents to continue trying to block Trump's order through a class action lawsuit. And they left key questions unanswered about the scope of relief that certain challengers — particularly individual states — are entitled to receive. Trump celebrated Friday's ruling as a 'monumental victory.' His administration has long sought to limit the ability of a single judge to block a federal policy across the country. Organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Defenders Fund and CASA Inc. have sued to block his order on birthright citizenship. They're already adjusting their legal strategy in light of the Supreme Court ruling, refiling their cases as class action lawsuits and seeking fresh court orders to block Trump's policy while their lawsuits proceed. 'Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead attorney in this case, said in a statement. 'The Supreme Court's decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child.' Litigation will also proceed in cases filed by the 22 Democratic-led states that sued to block the order. Those states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, emphasized the legal uncertainty and said lower courts will now have to determine the scope of relief available to states that sued in order to avoid running afoul of the Supreme Court. 'There's lots of unanswered questions,' she said. Some state attorneys general said language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion leaves open the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. 'The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution belong to everyone in this country, not just those whose state attorneys general had the courage to stand up to this president's anti-democratic agenda,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. 'We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable.' America's Top Consumer-Sentiment Economist Is Worried How to Steal a House Inside Gap's Last-Ditch, Tariff-Addled Turnaround Push Apple Test-Drives Big-Screen Movie Strategy With F1 Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Erreur lors de la récupération des données Connectez-vous pour accéder à votre portefeuille Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données
The Hill
41 minutes ago
- The Hill
Sotomayor says public education is doomed without mandatory gay and trans story hour
The end is nigh. That seems to be the message this week from the three liberal justices at the Supreme Court when faced with the nightmarish prospect of parents being able to remove their young children from mandatory classes on gay, lesbian and transgender material. The decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor was a roaring victory for parents in public schools. The Montgomery County, Md. school system fought to require the reading of 13 'LGBTQ+-inclusive' texts in the English and Language Arts curriculum for kids from pre-K through 12th grade. That covers children just 5-11 years old. The children are required to read or listen to stories like 'Prince & Knight' about two male knights who marry each other, and 'Love Violet' about two young girls falling in love. Another, 'Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,' discusses a biological girl who begins a transition to being a boy. Teachers were informed that this was mandatory reading, which must be assigned, and that families would not be allowed to opt out. The guidelines for teachers made clear that students had to be corrected if they expressed errant or opposing views of gender. If a child questions how someone born a boy could become a girl, teachers were encouraged to correct the child and declare, 'That comment is hurtful!' Even if a student merely asks, 'What's transgender?,' teachers are expected to say, 'When we're born, people make a guess about our gender and label us 'boy' or 'girl' based on our body parts. Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong.' Teachers were specifically told to '[d]isrupt' thinking or values opposing transgender views. Many families sought to opt out of these lessons. The school allows for such opt-outs for a variety of reasons, but the Board ruled out withdrawals for these lessons. Ironically, it noted that so many families were upset and objecting that it would be burdensome to allow so many kids to withdraw. The Montgomery County school system is one of the most diverse in the nation. And Christian, Muslim, and other families objected to the mandatory program as undermining their religious and moral values. The majority on the Supreme Court ruled that, as with other opt-outs, Montgomery County must allow parents to withdraw their children from these lessons. The response from liberal groups was outrage. Liberal sites declared 'another victory for right-wing culture warriors,' even though the public overwhelmingly supported these parents. However, the most overwrought language came not from liberal advocates but liberal justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor declared that there 'will be chaos for this nation's public schools' and both education and children will 'suffer' if parents are allowed to opt their children out of these lessons. She also worried about the 'chilling effect' of the ruling, which would make schools more hesitant to offer such classes in the future. It was a particularly curious concern, since parents would like teachers to focus more on core subjects and show greater restraint in pursuing social agendas. The majority pushed back against 'the deliberately blinkered view' of the three liberal justices on dismissing the objections of so many families to these lessons. Nevertheless, even though such material was only recently added and made mandatory, the liberal justices declared that 'the damage to America's public education system will be profound' and 'threatens the very essence of public education.' The truth is that this decision could actually save public education in the U.S. Previously, during oral argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had shocked many when she dismissed the objections of parents, stating that they could simply remove their children from public schools. It was a callous response to many families who do not have the means to pay for private or parochial schools. Yet, it is a view previously expressed by many Democratic politicians and school officials. State Rep. Lee Snodgrass (D-Wis.) once insisted: 'If parents want to 'have a say' in their child's education, they should homeschool or pay for private school tuition out of their family budget.' Iowa school board member Rachel Wall said: 'The purpose of a public ed is to not teach kids what the parents want. It is to teach them what society needs them to know. The client is not the parent, but the community.' These parents still harbor the apparently misguided notion that these remain their children. Today, many are indeed following Jackson's advice and leaving public schools. The opposition of public-sector unions and many Democratic politicians to school vouchers is precisely because families are fleeing the failing public school systems. Once they are no longer captive to the system, they opt for private schools that offer a greater focus on basic educational subjects and less emphasis on social activism. Our public schools are imploding. Some are lowering standards to achieve 'equity' and graduating students without proficiency skills. Families are objecting to the priority given to political and social agendas to make their kids better people when they lack of math, science, and other skills needed to compete in an increasingly competitive marketplace. This decision may well save public schools from themselves by encouraging a return to core educational priorities. It may offer some cover for more moderate school officials to push back against such demands for mandatory readings to young children. What the majority calls 'the deliberately blinkered view' of the dissent could just as well describe the delusional position of public school boards and unions. Schools are facing rising debt and severe declines in enrollment, yet unions in states like Illinois are demanding even more staff increases and larger expenditures. The liberal justices are right about one thing: This is a fight over 'the essence of public education.' However, it is the parents, not the educators (or these justices) who are trying to restore public education to meet the demands for a diverse nation. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the best-selling author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.'
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Trump says he will move aggressively to undo nationwide blocks on his agenda
An emboldened Trump administration plans to move aggressively to challenge blocks on the president's top priorities, a White House official said, following a major Supreme Court ruling that limits the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Government attorneys will press judges to pare back the dozens of sweeping rulings thwarting the president's agenda 'as soon as possible,' said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations.
