Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, explained
On 27 June 2025 the Supreme Court upheld Texas's HB 1181, which makes adult sites check that visitors are 18 or older. The vote was 6 to 3, and the Court judged the law by intermediate scrutiny, not strict scrutiny.1
Checked 29 October 2026 against the sources.
The case at a glance
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Name and number | Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, No. 23-11221 |
| Citation | 606 U.S. 461 (2025), as cited by the Eleventh Circuit2 |
| Argued and decided | Argued 15 January 2025, decided 27 June 20251 |
| The law | Texas HB 1181 (2023), which covers sites where more than a third of the material is sexual material harmful to minors1 |
| Who sued | Free Speech Coalition and others, described in the syllabus as representatives of the pornography industry, against the Texas Attorney General1 |
| Majority | Justice Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett1 |
| Dissent | Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson1 |
| Result | The Fifth Circuit's judgment was affirmed1 |
The two opinions, in their own words
Both sides agreed that Texas may keep this material from children. They split on how hard a court should look at the burden on adults.1
The majority
HB 1181 "triggers, and survives, review under intermediate scrutiny because it only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults."1
"Adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification," the Court wrote, and the methods the law allows, government ID and transactional data, are "plainly legitimate."1
The dissent
Justice Kagan would have applied strict scrutiny, as the Court had in four earlier cases: laws like HB 1181 "impede adults from viewing a class of speech protected for them."1
She wrote that the law "might well pass the strict-scrutiny test," but that a State "cannot target that expression, as Texas has here, any more than is necessary to prevent it from reaching children."1
Why the level of scrutiny matters
- The law must be the least restrictive way to serve a compelling interest. The challengers asked for this, and earlier cases such as Reno v. ACLU and Ashcroft v. ACLU applied it.1
- The law must advance an important interest and not burden substantially more speech than needed. It does not have to be the least restrictive option. This is what the Court applied.1
- The most deferential test. The Fifth Circuit had used it, and Texas argued for it. The Court rejected it because age checks do burden adults' rights.1
What the ruling does and does not decide
What it decides
That a law requiring proof of age for content obscene to minors gets intermediate scrutiny, and that Texas's law passes it.1 More states' adult site laws have taken effect since; see the 27 states.
What it does not decide
It was about adult sites, not social media or app stores. Courts weighing those laws cite its framework but decide the scrutiny question themselves: the Eleventh Circuit, for example, found Florida's social media law content neutral and applied intermediate scrutiny on that ground.2 Social media laws by state
Questions people ask
Did the Supreme Court say age verification laws are constitutional?
It upheld one: Texas's HB 1181, for sites with content obscene to minors.1 Other states' laws are judged on their own wording, under the standard the Court set.
What was the vote in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton?
6 to 3. Justice Thomas wrote for the majority; Justice Kagan wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.1
Does the ruling let sites keep my ID?
The ruling does not address that. HB 1181 itself bars a site, and any company checking ages for it, from keeping identifying information about the visitor.3
Is HB 1181 in effect?
Yes. Its start date was 1 September 2023.3 A federal court blocked it the day before, the Fifth Circuit paused that block on 19 September 2023, and the Supreme Court's ruling left the law in place.1, 4 Texas's three laws
Sources 4
- Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, No. 23-1122, decided 27 June 2025 (syllabus, opinion of the Court and dissent), Supreme Court of the United States. Read 29 October 2026.
- Computer & Communications Industry Association v. Attorney General of Florida, No. 25-11881, opinion of 14 October 2026, US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Read 29 October 2026.
- HB 1181, 88th Legislature, enrolled text, Texas Legislature Online. Read 29 October 2026.
- Response to application 23A925, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, 26 April 2024 (timeline of the district court injunction and Fifth Circuit stays), Texas Attorney General, filed with the Supreme Court of the United States. Read 29 October 2026.
Every quote here is from the opinion itself, checked again and dated. How we check