Supreme Court Grants Review of Texas Social Media Age Law, Oral Argument Set for April 22

Cert Grant Expected After Friday Conference

The Supreme Court has voted to grant review of a Texas law requiring social media platforms to verify the age of users before allowing account creation, and will hear oral argument on April 22, according to two clerks familiar with the court's deliberations. The case, captioned NetChoice v. Paxton, challenges a 2023 state statute that mandates government-issued photo identification for users under 18 and requires parental consent for minors to create accounts on platforms with more than 50 million monthly active users.

The justices discussed the case at their private conference on Feb. 13 and at least four members voted to add it to the merits docket, the clerks said. A formal order granting certiorari is scheduled for release on Tuesday, Feb. 17, though the court does not publicly announce argument dates in its orders list. The April 22 argument date was confirmed by a lawyer who argued the case and a Department of Justice official who has seen the court's internal calendar.

The Texas law, known as HB 1181 during the 2023 legislative session, was blocked by a federal district judge in Austin in 2024 but was revived in part by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit last September. The Fifth Circuit ruled that age verification provisions did not violate the First Amendment on their face, though it left open questions about how platforms could comply without chilling adult speech.

The court's decision to take the case follows months of behind-the-scenes maneuvering. NetChoice filed its petition on Nov. 14, 2025, and the justices considered it at conferences on Jan. 9, Jan. 23, and Feb. 6 before reaching agreement, one clerk said. The repeated relisting of the petition suggested that at least one justice was writing a dissent from denial or a statement respecting the grant, the clerk added.

First Amendment and Parental Consent at Issue

The petition for review asks the justices to decide whether a state may compel private platforms to collect and retain government IDs as a condition of providing anonymous or pseudonymous online speech. The trade association represents Meta Platforms, X Corp., Alphabet's YouTube, Snap Inc., and several smaller social media companies that operate nationwide.

A lawyer who argued the case said the petition emphasized three specific questions. First, whether strict scrutiny applies to laws that burden adults' access to constitutionally protected speech. Second, whether the age verification requirement is narrowly tailored to the state's interest in protecting minors. Third, whether the parental consent mandate for 13- to 17-year-olds survives intermediate scrutiny.

The Texas statute requires covered platforms to obtain a copy of a driver's license, passport, or state-issued ID card before creating an account. For users ages 13 to 17, the platform must also receive verifiable consent from a parent or guardian through a separate authentication process. The law applies to platforms with annual revenue above $100 million or more than 50 million monthly active users in the United States.

The case arrives at the court one year after the justices issued a fractured ruling in Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Bonta, which addressed similar Florida and California content-moderation laws but did not resolve the age verification question. That 2025 decision sent the cases back to lower courts for further fact-finding, leaving a split among the federal appeals courts.

The Fifth Circuit's ruling created a direct conflict with the Ninth Circuit, which in December 2025 struck down a similar Arizona law on broader First Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court typically grants review to resolve such circuit splits, particularly when they involve the operation of major federal statutes and constitutional rights affecting hundreds of millions of users.

Briefing Schedule and Interested Parties

Under the court's standard schedule, briefs on the merits will be filed over the next eight weeks. The petitioner's opening brief is due March 13, the respondent's brief is due April 3, and the reply brief is due April 13, according to the lawyer who argued the case. Amicus briefs supporting either side are expected from civil liberties groups, state attorneys general, parent organizations, and technology trade associations.

The Family Online Safety Institute and the National Center on Sexual Exploitation have signaled they will file briefs defending the Texas law, while the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are expected to support NetChoice, the lawyer said. The Office of Solicitor General filed a brief in November urging the court to grant review and reverse the Fifth Circuit, the DOJ official said.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office is expected to defend the law before the justices. The platforms will be represented by a team led by former Solicitor General Paul Clement, according to the lawyer who argued the case. Clement argued the related NetChoice cases before the court in 2024 and 2025.

What Happens Next

The court's April argument calendar already includes cases involving federal agency power, bankruptcy, and criminal procedure. Adding NetChoice v. Paxton on April 22 means the justices will have roughly seven weeks after argument to draft an opinion before the term ends in late June. The clerks said the case is likely to be decided by the end of June, possibly alongside other First Amendment cases.

Practical implications of the ruling could extend beyond Texas. At least 14 states have enacted or are considering similar age verification statutes, including Louisiana, Arkansas, Utah, and Mississippi. A broad ruling upholding the Texas law would likely accelerate state legislative efforts, while a ruling striking it down could halt the trend and force legislatures to rely on less intrusive measures.

NetChoice declined to comment. The Texas Attorney General's office did not respond to a request for comment on Friday evening. The Supreme Court's public information office does not comment on pending cases. The Alamo Post will update this story when the court issues its orders list on Feb. 17.