The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a challenge to Texas’ age verification law for online content, just days after news broke about one of the major online age verification companies getting hacked.

The new legal case, brought forth by the Free Speech Coalition, questions whether the state’s mandate for age verification on adult content websites violates constitutional free speech protections.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has faced such an issue. Twenty years ago, in cases like Reno v. ACLU and Ashcroft v. ACLU, the Court struck down similar attempts by Congress to regulate online content to protect children. These rulings established critical precedents: the First Amendment applies to online scenarios, and age-restricting access to content online was deemed unconstitutional as it failed the “strict scrutiny” test. The Court concluded that such laws were not the “least restrictive means” of protecting children, as they unduly blocked access for both minors and adults to constitutionally protected content.

Despite these precedents, recent years have seen a resurgence in legislative efforts to impose age verification for online content. This trend spans across both Republican and Democrat-controlled states, driven by a renewed moral panic over children’s exposure to explicit material online. Texas’ law, passed in 2023, mandates that websites containing more than one-third “sexual material harmful to minors” must verify that all users, including adults, are at least 18 years old by submitting personal identification information.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Texas law, diverging from past Supreme Court rulings by applying “intermediate scrutiny” instead of “strict scrutiny.” This decision contradicted numerous other court rulings, which have consistently found such laws unconstitutional.

Critics of the Texas law, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Free Speech Coalition, argue that mandatory age verification poses significant privacy and security risks. They highlight the potential for identity theft, tracking, and extortion due to the sensitive nature of the required information. Moreover, a recent incident involving an age verification vendor leaking personal data underscores these concerns.

Vera Eidelman, an attorney with the ACLU, stated, “We look forward to defending the First Amendment rights of all Americans to access the internet free from surveillance and suppression.” The Free Speech Coalition has expressed similar sentiments, emphasizing the risks to privacy and free speech.

Texas, on the other hand, argues that the law is a necessary measure to protect children in an age where explicit content is easily accessible online. The state contends that the law merely requires commercially reasonable steps to verify users’ ages, akin to requirements for physical businesses.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case provides an opportunity to revisit and potentially reinforce its earlier rulings on internet free speech and privacy. Given the current Court’s tendency to scrutinize decisions from the Fifth Circuit closely, there is cautious optimism among free speech advocates that the Texas law might be struck down.

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for internet privacy and free speech. Upholding the Texas law could pave the way for similar laws nationwide, fundamentally changing how age verification and privacy are handled online. Conversely, a decision against the law could reaffirm protections for free speech and privacy in the digital age.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in its next term starting in October, all eyes will be on how it navigates this complex intersection of free speech, privacy, and child protection in the digital era. The decision will likely set a significant precedent, shaping the future landscape of internet regulation.

For now, the debate continues, reflecting deep-seated concerns and differing perspectives on the best ways to protect children online while preserving fundamental freedoms.