NetChoice v. Jay Jones
Issue
Whether Virginia's SB 854 — which mandates a one-hour daily default limit on minor social media use with parental override capability — is a content-neutral regulation subject to intermediate scrutiny under the First Amendment, or a content-based restriction subject to strict scrutiny, and whether the district court's preliminary injunction enjoining its enforcement should be stayed pending appeal.
What Happened
Virginia's Attorney General moved the Fourth Circuit to stay a February 27, 2026 preliminary injunction issued by the Eastern District of Virginia, which had enjoined enforcement of SB 854 on the ground that the statute was likely content-based because its definition of "social media platform" referenced examples of excluded content (news, sports, entertainment, ecommerce, and interactive gaming) and distinguished user-generated from provider-selected speech. The district court found the statute failed both strict and intermediate scrutiny — despite crediting Virginia's evidence of a compelling interest in protecting children — because it was not narrowly tailored and Virginia had not exhausted less restrictive alternatives such as parental-awareness advertising campaigns. Virginia argues the district court made three reversible errors: it failed to conduct the comprehensive full-scope review required for facial challenges under *Moody v. NetChoice*, 603 U.S. 707 (2024); it mischaracterized the statute as content-based when the one-hour default applies uniformly across all social media platforms regardless of content; and it misapplied intermediate scrutiny by demanding exact fit rather than the more permissive standard the Virginia AG argues *Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton*, 606 U.S. 461 (2025), requires.
Why It Matters
This motion advances a circuit split in formation over the constitutionality of state statutes limiting minors' social media access, with the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits having already stayed comparable injunctions against Mississippi and Florida laws; a Fourth Circuit stay or merits ruling could deepen or resolve that split and refine the post-*Moody* framework for facial First Amendment challenges to platform-regulating legislation.
Related Filings
Other proceedings in the same litigation tracked by this monitor.
How accurate was this summary?