NGOs File Amicus Brief Supporting NetChoice SCOTUS Case

WASHINGTON—A coalition of civil society organizations filed an amicus brief in support of NetChoice, a trade group representing the mainstream digital industry, in its application for judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case about Mississippi's social media age verification laws. The filing was made on July 25.

The case is NetChoice v. Fitch, which is currently being petitioned to the high court to temporarily restrict enforcement of the social media age verification law. NetChoice sued Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, a far-right Republican, arguing before a federal judge that age verification is unconstitutional. 

The coalition that filed an amicus in support of NetChoice includes organizations that supported adult entertainment industry trade organization the Free Speech Coalition in its case against the state of Texas and its age verification law that specifically targets adult entertainment platforms.

Civil society organizations including the nonprofit National Coalition Against Censorship, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Woodhull Freedom Foundation, and First Amendment scholar Clay Calvert are led by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression in the amicus brief.

"The lower court twice issued injunctions preventing enforcement of the law, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit paused the most recent injunction and allowed the law to go into effect," reads a statement from the National Coalition Against Censorship. "NetChoice has filed an emergency application at the Supreme Court requesting that the justices vacate the Fifth Circuit’s decision in order to reinstate the injunction."

Characterizing the Mississippi social media age verification statute, House Bill (HB) 1126, as an "I.D.-for-Speech" law, NetChoice is asking the Supreme Court to reinstate a preliminary injunction against the law that was initially issued by a federal district court that found it potentially in violation of the First Amendment.