The laws aim to prevent these platforms from blocking or removing posts solely based on political viewpoints.

Both the Florida and Texas laws require big tech companies like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook to host third-party communications while prohibiting them from engaging in censorship or prioritizing content. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously, emphasizing that the lower courts failed to adequately analyze the First Amendment issues involved in the cases. As a result, the cases will be sent back to their respective Circuit Court of Appeals.

The court clarified that the lower courts primarily focused on the curated feeds of prominent social media platforms and did not consider the potential impact on other types of websites and apps. This discrepancy is essential when assessing the constitutionality of the laws through a facial challenge, the court added.

During four hours of oral arguments in February, the justices extensively deliberated whether to issue a sweeping ruling on the First Amendment implications of the state laws or take a more limited approach by requesting the lower courts to reevaluate the application of content moderation policies.

The Florida law aimed to restrict social media platforms from censoring, prioritizing, or engaging in "shadow banning" based on content. In contrast, the Texas law had a broader scope, including the prevention of "willfully deplatforming a candidate" for public office due to material posted by or about that candidate. Additionally, both laws mandated that companies notify users when their content has been modified or edited, along with a detailed explanation of the action taken.

Trade groups representing big tech companies argue that these laws violate their free speech rights to determine what content aligns with their policies. They assert that their platforms should not serve as open-ended portals for offensive or dangerous speech, encompassing issues such as school bullying, harassment, terrorist ideology, racial hatred, medical misinformation, and voter fraud.

On the other hand, Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, criticized the platforms' stance, highlighting their desire to retain liability protections granted by Congress while seeking the authority to censor content. He argued that the platforms cannot claim First Amendment protection for their content hosting and curation decisions after years of advocating a different position.

The Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the challenges to the Florida and Texas laws raises important questions about the balance between free speech and content moderation on social media platforms. The cases will now return to the respective Circuit Court of Appeals for further review and analysis in light of the court's ruling.