Moody v. NetChoice; NetChoice v. Paxton
On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court vacated two lower courts’ decisions and remanded for further proceedings in challenges to Texas House Bill 20’s and Florida Senate Bill 7072’s individualized-explanation requirements. The Court held that the lower courts erred in their application of the Zauderer test. This holding was a disappointment for WLF, which argued that Zauderer should not apply for four reasons: (1) Zauderer cannot be applied to statutes that compel speech outside the context of advertising; (2) Zauderer cannot be applied to statutes that compel speech on controversial topics; (3) Zauderer does not govern when a speech requirement seeks to promote consumer welfare in general instead of seeking to correct a commercial entity’s false or deceptive statements; and (4) Zauderer cannot be applied to necessarily subjective regulations. WLF’s brief also noted the evidence showing that Florida and Texas are attempting to impose content-based restrictions on political speech.
Documents: