The highest court in the United States has chosen not to make a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of laws proposed by Republicans that restrict social media platforms' ability to moderate content, instead sending the issue back to lower courts. On Monday, the US Supreme Court directed the Courts of Appeals for the 5th and 11th Circuits to reexamine the laws in Texas and Florida, arguing that the previous assessments did not adequately consider the statutes' alignment with the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The decision by the top court upheld the rights of platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube to curate content on their platforms, even though it did not address the laws' constitutionality directly. According to Justice Elena Kagan, who authored the court's opinion supported by five of the nine justices, social media companies should have editorial discretion akin to newspapers, emphasizing that the First Amendment applies regardless of the platform involved. The laws in Florida and Texas aimed to limit platforms' authority to moderate content, with conservatives alleging bias by Big Tech in favoring liberal viewpoints and stifling right-wing perspectives. The unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court leaves the laws in Texas and Florida intact but under temporary injunctions resulting from legal challenges. Industry representatives welcomed the decision, with Chris Marchese of the NetChoice Litigation Center praising the court for upholding free speech protections in the digital realm, and Matthew Schruers of the Computer & Communications Industry Association expressing satisfaction that states cannot manipulate the marketplace of ideas. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton vowed to continue advocating for his state's law, condemning tech companies for what he deems as silencing Americans and threatening public discourse and election integrity.