NetChoice has filed an emergency application with the US Supreme Court to halt the enforcement of Mississippi’s online age verification digital ID law, House Bill 1126, after the Fifth Circuit stayed a preliminary injunction without explanation. The group is urging the Court to reinstate the district court’s ruling and protect First Amendment rights, which it argues are under immediate threat.
The Mississippi law compels every person, regardless of age, to verify their identity before creating accounts on social media platforms, and requires minors to obtain explicit parental consent.
NetChoice argues that this framework “unconstitutionally imposes content-based parental-consent, age-verification, and monitoring-and-censorship requirements for vague categories of speech on social media websites.”
The emergency filing warns of far-reaching consequences, asserting that “the Act will prevent access to that expression for some users entirely—including those unwilling or unable to verify their age and minors who cannot secure parental consent.”
We obtained a copy of the filing for you here.
Adults would also be subject to this regime, required to share private information in order to access constitutionally protected online spaces.
According to the brief, “the Act would require adults and minors to provide personally identifying information to access all manner of fully protected speech.”
NetChoice compares this level of state control to a dystopian system where “stationing government-mandated clerks at every bookstore and theater to check identification before citizens can access books, movies, or even join conversations” would be the norm.
The brief continues, “This Act thus presents far different issues from pornography laws… it ‘directly targets’ a staggering amount of fully protected speech.”
Seven other courts across the country have already blocked similar laws. Mississippi’s version, however, would go into effect immediately unless the Supreme Court intervenes.
NetChoice warns that “the Act would all but kill anonymous speech online,” and that by demanding such sensitive data, it would create “honeypots that will be targets for cybercriminals and predators.”
The law’s vague requirements also place platforms in a dangerous bind. They must either over-censor to avoid liability or risk heavy penalties. The state imposes up to $10,000 in civil fines per violation, plus possible criminal charges.
“The Act’s requirement that websites ‘implement a strategy to prevent or mitigate . . . exposure to’ vaguely defined categories of protected speech violates the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause,” the application states. Such vagueness invites state overreach, effectively coercing platforms to censor protected expression preemptively.
The Fifth Circuit’s role in enabling this, NetChoice argues, is deeply problematic. The appeals court issued a one-line stay of the district court’s injunction, without offering any legal reasoning. “The Fifth Circuit’s unexplained stay order deprives NetChoice, its members, and their users of the ‘careful review and a meaningful decision’ to which they are ‘entitle[d].’”
NetChoice is calling on the Court to reverse that decision, preserve the injunction, and protect open access to digital platforms while the broader appellate process continues. “This Court should vacate the Fifth Circuit’s order staying the district court’s preliminary injunction. That would allow NetChoice members to continue disseminating speech to users free from unconstitutional restraints.”
The organization draws heavily on established First Amendment precedent. As the brief notes, “Minors ‘are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection,’ and States lack ‘power to prevent children from hearing or saying anything without their parents’ prior consent.’” Requiring parental approval, the filing argues, fundamentally erodes that protection.
It further adds: “There is no precedent for state control, uninvited by parents, over a child’s speech.” and “The Act unlawfully requires parental consent for all minors at every developmental stage—from websites’ youngest users to 17-year-olds.”
On the broader legal principle, NetChoice makes clear: “Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them.”
The potential consequences are extensive. Under HB 1126, Mississippi would dictate what qualifies as “harmful material” online and effectively deputize platforms to filter it, replacing voluntary moderation policies with state mandates. “The Act’s blunderbuss approach to regulating online speech is an insurmountable tailoring flaw.”
With the emergency appeal now before Justice Samuel Alito, NetChoice is pressing the Supreme Court to act quickly. It urges the Court to reinstate the injunction not just to protect the rights of its members, but to reaffirm that speech, especially online speech, cannot be subject to broad, vague, or invasive government mandates.
As the filing puts it bluntly: “This is akin to the government requiring bookstores, theaters, and video game arcades… to verify parental consent before allowing minors to engage in protected speech activities.”
If the Supreme Court does not step in, Mississippi could become the testing ground for a deeply intrusive form of online censorship, one that strips control from individuals and families and hands it squarely to the state.
