Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, joined by officials from 22 other states, have filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in defense of Texas’ age verification law, HB 1181.

An amicus brief is a legal document submitted to a court by a person or organization that is not a party to the case, but has an interest in the outcome. The term “amicus curiae” is Latin for “friend of the court”. Amicus briefs can be used to address policy or social issues that are not covered by the parties’ briefs or to advise the court about unintended consequences of the decision. 

This law mandates that adult websites verify the ages of users attempting to access content. The case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, is set for oral arguments on January 15, 2025.

The brief, submitted earlier this month, underscores the collective effort by multiple states to argue that such measures are essential for shielding minors from potentially harmful material. The attorneys general assert that these laws represent a “modest regulation” of a multi-billion-dollar industry they claim causes widespread harm to children.

The push for age verification laws gained traction after Louisiana became the first state to enact such legislation in January 2023. Texas, Utah, Virginia, Mississippi, and Arkansas quickly followed suit. Since then, states including Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, Alabama, and Oklahoma have implemented similar requirements, with more states scheduled to enact such laws in 2024.

In Indiana, Governor Eric Holcomb signed Senate Bill 17 into law in March 2024. The law, which took effect in July, imposes stringent age verification protocols for websites hosting explicit material. Critics argue that these measures are ineffective, citing enforcement challenges and concerns over infringements on the rights of adults to access constitutionally protected speech.

The adult industry, led by the Free Speech Coalition, has pushed back against these laws, labeling them unconstitutional and asserting that they create significant privacy risks for users. Websites like Pornhub have chosen to block access to their platforms in states with these laws, including Indiana and Texas. They argue that without a standardized enforcement mechanism, compliance is inconsistent and potentially leaves users’ personal data vulnerable.

The amicus brief filed by the coalition of states rebuts these arguments, emphasizing that age verification is a reasonable extension of existing practices in other industries, such as alcohol, tobacco, and gambling. The brief contends that the regulation aligns with longstanding legal precedents supporting states’ rights to protect minors from obscene content.

“States had the power to require identification checks in the pre-internet age, and they retain that power now,” the brief states. “The ubiquity of internet pornography makes the states’ interest in protecting children stronger now than ever before.”

The case of Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton has garnered significant attention as it may set a nationwide precedent for how age verification laws are enforced in the digital age. The Free Speech Coalition argues that such laws unfairly restrict access to legal content for adults, infringe on First Amendment rights, and fail to achieve their stated goals of protecting children.

Supporters of HB 1181, including the 24 states backing Texas, argue that the laws are necessary to combat the widespread availability of explicit material online, which they say inflicts harm on minors “across psychological, social, emotional, neurobiological, and sexual dimensions.”

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita emphasized the importance of these laws, stating, “The internet should not be a free-for-all where children can access harmful and obscene material. Age verification is a commonsense safeguard.”

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost echoed these sentiments, highlighting the need for consistency in applying protections across digital platforms: “If age checks are required for alcohol and gambling, they should be required for adult content as well.”

Critics, however, including civil liberties groups and privacy advocates, warn that such laws may lead to unintended consequences, such as the erosion of online anonymity and the misuse of sensitive user data.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in January, the case underscores a growing divide between those advocating for stricter online content controls and those who warn against government overreach and threats to individual rights. A ruling in favor of Texas could pave the way for widespread adoption of similar laws, while a decision against it may force states to reconsider their approaches to regulating online adult content.