606 U.S. 461 (2025) · 2025
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
free speechinternet regulationage verificationchildren and online safetyprivacyFirst AmendmentLandmark
Summary
Free Speech Coalition challenged a Texas law requiring certain commercial adult-content websites to verify that users are 18 or older. The plaintiffs argued that the law burdened adults' First Amendment rights and should face strict scrutiny. The Supreme Court disagreed. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the law is reviewed under intermediate scrutiny because it targets minors' access to sexual material that is harmful to minors and only incidentally burdens adults. The Court then held that Texas's law satisfies intermediate scrutiny.
Background & Context
The case arose from Texas H.B. 1181. The law applies to commercial websites when more than one-third of their content is sexual material harmful to minors. Covered sites must use reasonable age-verification methods before allowing access. Free Speech Coalition and other plaintiffs sued, arguing that the law violated the First Amendment because it restricted adults' access to lawful speech. Texas defended the law as a child-protection measure focused on material that states may restrict for minors.
The Question Before the Court
Does a state law requiring age verification for commercial websites that publish sexual material harmful to minors violate the First Amendment, and should that law be reviewed under strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny?
Petitioner
Free Speech Coalition, Inc., et al.
Party asking the Court to review or reverse
Argued
- The law burdens adults access to protected speech.
- Strict scrutiny should apply.
- The law raises privacy and security risks.
Respondent
Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas
Party defending the judgment below
Argued
- States may restrict minors access to sexual material harmful to them.
- The burden on adults is incidental.
- Intermediate scrutiny is the right test.
The Holding
Texas's age-verification law for commercial websites that publish sexual material harmful to minors is subject to intermediate scrutiny under the First Amendment and survives that review. The Court held that the law is aimed at preventing minors from accessing harmful sexual material, while imposing only an incidental burden on adults' access to protected speech.
The Court
How the justices lined up in this decision.
6-3
Vote
Joined decision
6 justicesAC
Amy Barrett
Majority
BK
Brett Kavanaugh
Majority
CT
Clarence Thomas
Majority
JR
John Roberts
Majority
NG
Neil Gorsuch
Majority
SA
Samuel Alito
Majority
Dissented
3 justicesEK
Elena Kagan
Dissent
KB
Ketanji Jackson
Dissent
SS
Sonia Sotomayor
Dissent
What this means for you
The ruling gives states more room to require age verification for commercial adult-content websites. Supporters say these laws help keep minors away from sexual material that states can lawfully restrict for children. Critics warn that age checks can chill adults' lawful speech and browsing because people may avoid sites that require identity verification or sensitive personal data. The decision does not give states unlimited power over online speech; it applies to this kind of law and this category of material.
Key Takeaways
- The Court upheld Texas's age-verification requirement for certain commercial adult-content websites.
- The majority applied intermediate scrutiny instead of strict scrutiny.
- The Court treated the law as a regulation aimed at minors' access to material that states may restrict for children.
- The dissent argued that the law burdens adults' access to protected speech and should receive stricter First Amendment review.
- The practical impact is that states have more legal room to pass online age-verification laws, though privacy and chilling-effect concerns remain important.
Decision
6-3 majority opinion
- Citation
- 606 U.S. 461 (2025)
- Vote
- 6-3
- Decision type
- Majority opinion
- Argued
- January 15, 2025
- Decided
- June 27, 2025
- Term
- 2024
- Opinion author
- Clarence Thomas
Justice Thomas wrote the Court's opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.