Supreme Court upholds age-verification law for accessing adult websites
A Texas law requiring websites with sexually explicit content to verify the age of users does not violate the First Amendment’s free speech clause, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Friday.
Although the law burdens the rights of adults who must provide age verification, the law is constitutional because it advances an important interest in protecting children, Justice Clarence Thomas said in an opinion for the majority.
The need for age verification is greater in the internet age, Thomas said.
“Unlike a store clerk, a website operator cannot look at its visitors and estimate their ages,” he wrote. “Without a requirement to submit proof of age, even clearly underage minors would be able to access sexual content undetected.”
The Texas law applies to commercial websites when at least one-third of their content consists of sexual materials that are harmful to minors. Those websites must use reasonable methods that can include government-issued identification to verify users are at least 18 years old.
Websites that fail to comply can face civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day and an additional $250,000 fine if minors access sexual material.
At least 21 other states have similar age-verification requirements, Thomas said.
The high court evaluated free speech concerns using intermediate scrutiny. The test considers whether a law advances important governmental interests and whether it does not burden substantially more speech than necessary.
The Texas law “readily satisfies” the test, Thomas said.
“The statute advances the state’s important interest in shielding children from sexually explicit content,” Thomas said. “And it is appropriately tailored because it permits users to verify their ages through the established methods of providing government-issued identification and sharing transactional data.”
Thomas rejected two other standards proposed by litigants. One of them, the rational-basis standard, considers whether a law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The more exacting strict-scrutiny review would require the state to show that a law is narrowly drawn to serve a compelling interest.
Justice Elena Kagan argued in a dissent that the Texas law should have been subjected to the strict-scrutiny standard. She was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The case is Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton.
Hat tip to SCOTUSblog, which had early coverage of the decision.
See also:
Law requiring proof of age to access online adult content will get Supreme Court review
Supreme Court’s sleepy-looking docket leaves room for potentially bigger cases to come
Chemerinsky: What can we expect from SCOTUS in 2025?
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
