Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (23-1122) 01/15/25
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (23-1122) 01/15/25
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
Docket Number: 23-1122
Date Argued: 01/15/25
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-1122_4f15.pdf
DECISION BELOW: 95 F.4th 263
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-50627
QUESTION PRESENTED:
This Court has repeatedly held that States may rationally restrict minors' access to sexual materials, but such restrictions must withstand strict scrutiny if they burden adults' access to
constitutionally protected speech. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656, 663 (2004). In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit applied rational-basis review-rather than strict scrutiny-to
vacate a preliminary injunction of a provision of a Texas law that significantly burdens adults' access to protected speech, because the law's stated purpose is to protect minors. The
question presented is:
Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review to a law burdening adults' access to protected speech, instead of strict scrutiny as this Court and other circuits have consistently done.
View all episodes
By Oral ArgumentsFree Speech Coalition v. Paxton
Docket Number: 23-1122
Date Argued: 01/15/25
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-1122_4f15.pdf
DECISION BELOW: 95 F.4th 263
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-50627
QUESTION PRESENTED:
This Court has repeatedly held that States may rationally restrict minors' access to sexual materials, but such restrictions must withstand strict scrutiny if they burden adults' access to
constitutionally protected speech. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656, 663 (2004). In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit applied rational-basis review-rather than strict scrutiny-to
vacate a preliminary injunction of a provision of a Texas law that significantly burdens adults' access to protected speech, because the law's stated purpose is to protect minors. The
question presented is:
Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review to a law burdening adults' access to protected speech, instead of strict scrutiny as this Court and other circuits have consistently done.