supreme court

Supreme Court Upholds Age-Verification Law

The Supreme Court upheld Texas’ age-verification legislation today in a 6-3 decision, with the six conservative justices ruling states can constitutionally require pornography companies to verify consumers’ ages.

“This is a major victory for children, parents and the ability of states to protect minors from the damaging effects of online pornography,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who defended the contested law, wrote in a press release.

“Companies have no right to expose children to pornography and must institute reasonable age verification measures.”

Background

Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton concerned HB 1181, a 2023 Texas law requiring websites with a substantial amount of obscene or adult content — more than one-third of all content offered — verify consumers’ ages.

The Free Speech Coalition (FSC), which represents more than a dozen pornography companies, sued Texas, claiming HB 1181 infringed on pornographers’ freedom of speech, citizens’ privacy and adults’ right to access obscene content.

U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra prevented Texas from enforcing HB 1181 in 2023 after determining it would not pass strict scrutiny — the highest standard of legal review reserved for laws that restrict speech based on its content.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling in 2024, holding HB 1181 should be evaluated under rational-basis review — the lowest standard of legal review that only evaluates whether a law serves a legitimate government interest.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Paxton on January 13. Though the court had previously evaluated obscenity cases with strict scrutiny, some justices acknowledged new precedent may be necessary in a digital age.

Opinion

Justice Clarence Thomas authored the majority, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett.

The Court held HB 1181 must pass intermediate scrutiny — a middling standard of review appropriate for laws that only incidentally burden free speech.

“Adults have the right to access speech obscene only to minors, and submitting to age verification burdens the exercise of that right,” Thomas acknowledged, continuing:

But adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification. Any burden on adults is therefore incidental to regulating activity not protected by the First Amendment.

To pass intermediate scrutiny, a law must serve a compelling government interest without “burden[ing] substantially more speech” than necessary to serve that purpose.

States not only have an undeniable interest in protecting children from obscenity, Thomas noted, but long-standing Constitutional authority to use age-verification laws to fulfill this interest.

“States have long used age-verification requirements to reconcile their interest in protecting children from sexual material with adults’ right to avail themselves of such material,” he wrote.

“HB 1181 simply adapts this approach to the digital age.”

FSC had argued age-verification would dissuade adults from exercising their right to consume pornography. Thomas found these arguments “unpersuasive.”

“The use of pornography has always been the subject of social stigma,” he reasoned. “This social reality has never been a reason to exempt the pornography industry from otherwise valid regulation.”

Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent, which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined, acknowledges the state has a compelling interest in protecting children from obscenity. It contended, however, HB 1181 should be evaluated under strict scrutiny.

Kagan wrote:

Texas’ law defines speech by content and tells people entitled to view that speech that they must incur a cost to do so. That is, under our First Amendment law, a direct (not incidental) regulation of speech based on its content — which demands strict scrutiny.

To pass strict scrutiny, a law must serve a compelling interest and restrict speech in the least burdensome way possible. Kagan does not believe HB 1181 would pass this test.

In the majority opinion, Thomas dismissed strict scrutiny as an inappropriate standard because HB 1181 does not ban adults from accessing obscene content. He further noted strict scrutiny should not be used to evaluate laws, like age-verification, that are “traditional and widely accepted as legitimate.”

Impact

The ruling establishes a constitutional avenue for states to require pornography companies to verify online consumers’ ages. It could also provide precedent for a federal age-verification law, like the SCREEN Act.

Porn consumption — and porn companies’ profits — plummet when states force them to check consumers’ ages. Traffic to Pornhub.com dropped 80% in Louisiana after it passed age-verification legislation in 2022, one spokesperson told the Institute for Family Studies.

That’s great news, given what we know about the exploitative pornography industry and its effect on human sexuality. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation writes of the ruling:

All of the world’s most abusive, violent and racist pornographic content is easily accessible to children online. That’s why today’s decision by the Supreme Court is so critical.
Now children in Texas will have a measure of protection from accessing pornography websites that are rampant with content that includes sexual assault, rape, child sexual abuse, image-based sexual abuse [and] other violent and racist themes.

The Daily Citizen applauds the Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of HB 1181 and, ultimately, siding with parents trying to protect their children from pornography.

Additional Articles and Resources

UPDATED: Pornography Age Verification Laws — What They Are and Which States have Them

Pornography is Bad for Humans. The Progressive Left Can’t Afford to Admit It.

Porn Companies Condition viewers to Desire Illegal and Abusive Content

Porn Companies Sued for Violating Kansas Age Verification Law

National Center on Sexual Exploitation Targets law Allowing Tech Companies to Profit from Online Sex Abuse

Proposed SCREEN Act Could Protect Kids from Porn

A Mother’s Sensibility at the Supreme Court Regarding Pornography

Pornhub Quits Texas Over Age Verification Law

Supreme Court Defends Religious Freedom, Parental Rights Over ‘LGBT’ Curriculum

In a decisive victory for people of faith, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of parental rights and religious freedom over mandated “LGBT” curriculum in public school classrooms.

The decision affirms schools can’t force children to participate in LGBT classroom material without offering parents the right to opt out based on sincerely held religious beliefs.

Background

The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, involves a group of Maryland parents from diverse religious backgrounds asking to opt their children out of mandated LGBT curricula at school.

As reported by the Daily Citizen, the case originated in 2023 when the school district eliminated an opt-out provision for LGBT children’s books read in the classroom.

A multi-faith parent group sued the school district, claiming the policy infringed on their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

They requested a preliminary injunction to prevent the school district from requiring their children to read, listen to or discuss the storybooks while the case was being litigated on the merits of its constitutional claims. The parents lost in both lower courts.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in April.

Opinion

The majority opinion was authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.

The Court ruled parents have the First Amendment free exercise right to opt their children out of LGBT classroom materials in public elementary schools.

The majority affirmed when schools force exposure to content conflicting with sincerely held religious beliefs, like marriage and gender identity, the schools substantially burden the rights of religious parents.

The Court applied strict scrutiny because it involves the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Here, the Court held the school district’s failure to allow religious opt-outs violated strict scrutiny because the school offered opt-outs in other contexts but refused to accommodate religious objections to LGBT material.

The majority reversed the lower court’s ruling and granted a preliminary injunction to the parents, which requires the district to provide notice before using LGBT curriculum and permits students to opt out of the instruction while the case continues to be litigated on its merits.

Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion emphasizing an important “implication of this decision for schools across the country.”

He wrote:

The Board may not insulate itself from First Amendment liability by “weav[ing]”religiously offensive material throughout its curriculum and thereby significantly increase the difficulty and complexity of remedying parents’ constitutional injuries.

He warned, “Insofar as schools or boards attempt to employ their curricula to interfere with religious exercise, courts should carefully police such ‘ingenious defiance of the Constitution.'”

Public schools have officially been put on notice by Justice Thomas.

The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.

Dissenting Justices argued this decision might undermine the role of public education in exposing students to differing perspectives. They suggested the administrative burden to opt students out would be too cumbersome and that this might lead to students being exempted from essential history or science concepts based on religious objections.

Impact

This case will have long-lasting implications not just in Maryland but in public schools across the nation.

Religious freedom and parental rights have been strengthened in every state. This ruling recognizes parents have a First Amendment right to protect their children from instruction contradicting their sincerely held religious beliefs. Based on this case precedent, schools will now be required to provide notice and opt-outs for LGBT materials, especially for young children.

Public school districts and boards nationwide must now reconsider their approach to LGBT content and change their policies or face lawsuits from parents ready to protect their children and defend their religious freedom.

Focus on the Family applauds the Court’s decision. This case draws a clear line in the sand — public education must respect parental rights and the religious convictions of Christians and all people of faith.  

Pro-Life Win: US Supreme Court Clears Path to Defund Planned Parenthood

In a significant victory for the pro-life movement, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of South Carolina’s plan to defund Planned Parenthood, creating a pathway for other states and Congress to finally stop using taxpayer dollars to subsidize Planned Parenthood.

This decision affirms state governments, and even the federal government, have the authority to define a qualified medical provider and confirms Medicaid recipients can’t sue to block those decision.

Background

The case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood, concerns South Carolina’s decision to withhold Medicaid tax dollars from abortion providers.

As reported by the Daily Citizen, the case originated with an executive order South Carolina’s governor issued in 2018, which prohibited abortion clinics from participating in the state’s Medicaid program.

Planned Parenthood sued the state on behalf of Medicaid recipients, claiming they have a judicially enforceable “right” to choose which qualified medical providers Medicaid should cover, including Planned Parenthood.

The Court heard oral arguments in April.

Opinion

The majority opinion was authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Barrett.

The central issue in this case was whether the Medicaid Act’s language gives recipients a legal right to sue in court. The majority said no because the language is too vague. If Congress wanted to permit individuals to sue, the Court opined, it would have used crystal-clear “rights” language. In this case, it did not.

The majority also reasoned that, because Medicaid is a spending program, federal agencies are responsible for holding states accountable, not individuals filing lawsuits.

The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.

Dissenting justices argued that, in their opinions, the statutory language gives individuals the right to sue. They contend that if Medicaid recipients can’t sue in court to defend their rights, they are powerless to challenge the state’s actions.

The case reveals an important philosophical divide within the Court regarding the separation of powers, federalism and the role of the judiciary.

The majority represents a more restrained and limited role of judicial power, requiring unambiguous language from Congress to interpret a private cause of action in federal statutes. The dissent presents a more expansive interpretation of the law and judicial power to infer rights in federal law that may not be explicitly stated.

Impact

Medina is a landmark case because it empowers states and Congress to defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

Focus on the Family applauds the Court’s decision. This ruling will save women and babies from the tragedy of abortion.

Other states can now look to South Carolina’s law as an example of how they, too, can defund Planned Parenthood at the state level.  

In addition, Congress now has strong legal authority to defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers at the federal level.

Now is the time to call on Congress to defund Planned Parenthood. American taxpayer dollars shouldn’t subsidize abortion providers. Contact your senator and representative today.

Supreme Court Will Review Requests to Redefine the Word “Sex”

Today the U.S. Supreme Court accepted three cases for hearing—granted “cert” in legal parlance—involving the definition of the word “sex” in the federal law prohibiting employment discrimination.

Two of the cases involve sexual orientation: Altitude Express v. Zarda (17-1623); and Bostock v. Clayton County (17-1618). A third case involves gender identity: R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC (18-107).

The federal employment law that prohibits discrimination on account of race, religion, sex, or national origin is known as Title VII. That law was passed as part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) began operations in 1965 to create policies and processes for investigating and resolving claims of employment discrimination involving those four protected classes.

In 1964, the definition of “sex” was universally regarded as including only biological males and females. No one in Congress (or the public, for that matter) even remotely considered the definition to include sexual orientation or gender identity. Congress has considered bills over the years to amend Title VII to include those two categories, but has rejected them every time.

Today, however, the justices have been asked to ignore the history of Title VII, including unsuccessful attempts to amend it, and usurp Congress’s legislative authority by essentially re-writing a federal statute. It now must include sexual orientation and gender identity in the meaning of the word “sex,” so the argument goes, for no other reason than because the times have changed.

Beside the bare legal issues raised by these cases about statutory interpretation, there are three main subtexts in all these cases involving the role of the courts, the role of administrative agencies, and the religious freedom of employers to operate their businesses in accordance with their faith.

First, do courts have the authority to redefine a statute’s meaning if the congressional intent was clear from the beginning, and re-emphasized over the years? One would hope that a judge or justice with a strong constitutionalist philosophy would answer that question in the negative. However, several lower federal courts have taken it upon themselves to overrule Congress and include sexual orientation and gender identity in Title VII. The Supreme Court has an opportunity with these cases to send a strong message throughout the federal court system.

Second, can a quasi-independent federal agency like the EEOC take it upon itself to overrule Congress by bringing lawsuits against employers for the simple purpose of getting activist judges to redefine “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity? This seems like blatant agency overreach. Officials at the EEOC are appointed, not elected, and have no accountability to voters. Commission policy in recent years has been heavily influenced by LGBT activist and Georgetown professor, Commissioner Chai Feldblum, an Obama appointee who only recently left the EEOC when her term expired.

Third, a court-mandated redefinition of the word “sex” will impair the religious free exercise of faith-based employers. The Harris Funeral Homes case is a perfect example. The Christian owners of the funeral homes are being forced to allow a male employee—who identifies as a woman—to come to work dressed as a woman. The owners take exception to that based on God’s view of male and female, and also want to protect the sensitivities of grieving families who are also oftentimes people of faith.

These cases will be heard in the next term of the Court that begins in October.

Another Christian-Owned Bakery Appeals to the Supreme Court

Aaron and Melissa Klein, the Christian owners of a Gresham, Oregon bakery called Sweetcakes by Melissa, politely turned down a request from a lesbian couple in 2013 to create a custom wedding cake for their upcoming wedding celebration. The Kleins explained to one of the lesbian women and her mother that the Kleins’ faith prevented them from creating an artistic expression symbolizing marriage for a same-sex wedding, after which the mother and daughter left. The mother returned shortly thereafter and engaged the Kleins in a further conversation as to why their religious faith prevented them from creating such a cake. At that point Aaron Klein shared a Scripture verse with the mother from Leviticus 18:22, which states: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

The mother then left the shop and inaccurately communicated to her daughter that Aaron had called her “an abomination.” Four days later, the same-sex couple found another baker who agreed to make the custom cake they desired. The couple then filed a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) charging the Kleins with discriminating against them on the basis of their sexual orientation, a purported violation of the state’s public accommodations laws. BOLI found against the Kleins and imposed damages of $135,000 for the alleged emotional pain suffered by the lesbian couple. The Kleins appealed BOLI’s decision all the way to the Oregon Supreme Court, to no avail. The Kleins have now asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the Oregon courts, arguing that Oregon has violated their freedom of speech and religion under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

If and when the Court formally accepts the Kleins’ appeal, a hearing will be set, and a written decision will follow. As this article went to press, the Court had not indicated whether it will indeed accept the case.

In addition to dealing with endless legal proceedings, the Kleins were vandalized and harassed out of business by those opposed to the religious stand that they took.

If this all sounds like déjà vu because of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in June, 2018 in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, involving a Christian baker from Lakewood, Colorado, who declined to bake a custom wedding cake for a homosexual couple, you’d be correct, up to a point.

If you recall, Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, won his case because the Supreme Court held that Colorado had violated his freedom of religion when it did two separate things: (1) the Colorado Civil Rights Commission treated his religious claims with hostility, at one point comparing his religious claim to the statements historically attributed to perpetrators of the Holocaust and former slave-owners to justify their abhorrent actions, and; (2) the Commission treated other bakers differently than Jack by upholding the rights of several shops that turned away a customer who wanted biblical verses about homosexuality written on a cake. Importantly, the Supreme Court did not address the free speech issue in Masterpiece.

In the Kleins’ case, there are indications of the state’s anti-religious hostility, but no record of differential treatment of the Kleins vis a vis other bakers. However, the Kleins’ arguments and supporting facts pick up where Jack Phillips’ case left off, i.e., they invoke free speech principles that the Masterpiece court did not address. There were “uncertainties” in the factual record, according to Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court, over whether Phillips’ wedding cakes were all “custom” cakes which, the justice noted, “might make a difference” to the outcome of his free speech claims.

But the Kleins and their legal team from First Liberty Institute are optimistic that the Kleins’ case could allow the Supreme Court to expand upon its Masterpiece decision and draw broad Constitutional lines that favor the free speech rights of artists in general.

The official case title for the Kleins’ appeal is Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.

 

*Photo by First Liberty