Supreme Court Upholds Texas Law Requiring Age Verification on Pornography Sites

The law, meant to shield minors from sexual materials on the internet by requiring adults to prove they are at least 18, was challenged on First Amendment grounds.

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a challenge to a Texas law that seeks to limit minors’ access to pornography on the internet, ruling that it does not violate the First Amendment to require people to verify their age through measures like the submission of government-issued IDs.

The vote was 6 to 3, with the court’s three liberal members in dissent.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, said the law’s age restriction was needed in the internet era.

“Unlike a store clerk,” he wrote, “a website operator cannot look at its visitors and estimate their ages. Without a requirement to submit proof of age, even clearly underage minors would be able to access sexual content undetected.”

The Texas law applies to any commercial website “more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors.” It requires such sites to use one of several methods to verify that users are 18 or older. It does not allow companies to retain the information their users submit. But the challengers said adults would be wary of supplying personal information for fear of identity theft, tracking and extortion.

More than 20 other states have enacted similar laws.

A trade group representing companies that produce sexual materials, along with an adult performer, challenged the Texas law, saying that it violated the First Amendment rights of adults.

Judge David Alan Ezra of the Western District of Texas blocked the law, saying it would have a chilling effect on speech protected by the First Amendment.

By verifying information through government identification, the law allows the government “to peer into the most intimate and personal aspects of people’s lives,” wrote Judge Ezra, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.

“It runs the risk that the state can monitor when an adult views sexually explicit materials and what kind of websites they visit,” he continued. “In effect, the law risks forcing individuals to divulge specific details of their sexuality to the state government to gain access to certain speech.”

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed. “The age-verification requirement is rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in preventing minors’ access to pornography,” Judge Jerry E. Smith, who was also appointed by Mr. Reagan, wrote for the majority. He was joined by Judge Jennifer W. Elrod, who was appointed by President George W. Bush.

Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham, another Reagan appointee, dissented, saying that the law chills free speech rights.

When the majority declined to put its decision on hold while the challengers sought Supreme Court review, Judge Higginbotham again dissented, saying that the case “begs for resolution by the high court” because the majority opinion “conflicts with Supreme Court precedent.”

After the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, Pornhub, one of the most visited sites in the world, suspended its operations in Texas.

In April 2024, the Supreme Court refused to block the law while the appeal moved forward. The law “has been permitted for more than a year, and the sky has not fallen,” Texas’ lawyers told the justices.

The appeals court’s majority relied on a 1968 Supreme Court decision, Ginsberg v. New York, which allowed limits on the distribution of sexual materials to minors, including what the justices called “girlie magazines” that fell well short of obscenity, a form of speech unprotected by the First Amendment.

That decision applied a relaxed form of judicial scrutiny. But in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union in 2004, the justices blocked a federal law, the Child Online Protection Act, which was similar to the one in Texas. They applied the most demanding form of judicial review — strict scrutiny — to find that the law impermissibly interfered with First Amendment rights.

Applying that test, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal law violated the First Amendment, citing the availability of less restrictive alternatives like content-filtering software that “would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve.”

In Friday’s decision, Justice Thomas said a less demanding standard was called for and that the Texas law satisfied it.

“The statute advances the state’s important interest in shielding children from sexually explicit content,” he wrote. “And, it is appropriately tailored because it permits users to verify their ages through the established methods of providing government-issued identification and sharing transactional data.”

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that she would have used the higher standard.

“The First Amendment protects those sexually explicit materials, for every adult,” she wrote. “So a state cannot target that expression, as Texas has here, any more than is necessary to prevent it from reaching children.”

Justice Kagan wrote that the case was “indistinguishable” from others in which the court has ruled the expression was protected.

Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the challengers in the case, said the court had betrayed bedrock free speech principles.

“The Supreme Court has departed from decades of settled precedents that ensured that sweeping laws purportedly for the benefit of minors do not limit adults’ access to First Amendment-protected materials,” she said in a statement.

Our Coverage of the Supreme Court

• Deportation: The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration could deport migrants to countries other than their own, potentially clearing the way for the U.S. to send a group of men to South Sudan.
• Maine House Censure: The Supreme Court ordered the state’s legislators to temporarily restore the voting power of a state lawmaker after she had been censured for a social media post that criticized transgender athletes’ participation in girls’ sports.
• Nationwide Injunctions: Across the ideological spectrum, justices have been troubled by rulings that touch everyone affected by a challenged law, regulation or executive action. Here are some of the most consequential policies that have been affected by the sweeping rulings that order the federal government to change its behavior across the country.
• Birthright Citizenship Case’s Unusual Features: This case is atypical for the justices for reasons including how quickly it made it to the court and even that oral arguments are happening at all.
• Judicial Independence: Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. defended the independence of the judiciary and denounced any attempt to impeach judges over disagreements with their rulings during rare public remarks.