Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Oral Argument: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton | Case No. 23-1122 | Date Argued: 1/15/25
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Oral Argument: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton | Case No. 23-1122 | Date Argued: 1/15/25
Case Info: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton | Case No. 23-1122 | Date Argued: 1/15/25
Link to Docket: Here.
Background:
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.
Question Presented: 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.
Oral Advocates:
- For petitioners: Derek L. Shaffer, Washington, D. C.
- For United States, as amicus curiae: Brian H. Fletcher, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
- For respondent: Aaron L. Nielson, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.
View all episodes
By SCOTUS Oral ArgumentsCase Info: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton | Case No. 23-1122 | Date Argued: 1/15/25
Link to Docket: Here.
Background:
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.
Question Presented: 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.
Oral Advocates:
- For petitioners: Derek L. Shaffer, Washington, D. C.
- For United States, as amicus curiae: Brian H. Fletcher, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
- For respondent: Aaron L. Nielson, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.