"Likely Unconstitutional, But Insufficient for Emergency Relief"

The US Supreme Court on August 14 rejected NetChoice request to temporarily halt enforcement of Mississippi social media regulation law. The decision was released through a supplemental opinion by conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who acknowledged "the law itself is likely unconstitutional" but agreed to rejection because "NetChoice failed to demonstrate irreparable harm sufficient to merit emergency relief." NetChoice v. Fitch: NetChoice is a trade association representing Big Tech including Google, Meta, and TikTok -- filed suit opposing Mississippi child online protection law. The law reportedly imposes broad obligations on platforms regarding minor account creation, content exposure, and data processing. The lower federal court issued a preliminary injunction in June finding likely unconstitutionality, but the state government appealed; when the law enforcement effectiveness revived during appeal, NetChoice requested emergency relief from the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh supplemental opinion nuance: the "irreparable harm" threshold for emergency Supreme Court intervention is very high; even if the law is likely unconstitutional, NetChoice must show specific and immediate harm that cannot be remedied through the normal appellate process; the fact that enforcement is resuming while the case proceeds is insufficient for emergency intervention if the court system can eventually address the underlying constitutional question. The First Amendment framework: the Supreme Court has been developing doctrine on when social media platforms have First Amendment rights that protect their editorial choices (including algorithm-driven curation) from government regulation -- the Mississippi law and similar state laws are forcing the Court to clarify this doctrine.