The Supreme Court is set to decide on the constitutionality of Texas's App Store Accountability Act (ASAA), a law that forbids anyone under 18 from downloading an app to a mobile device without parental or guardian permission. The law also requires app stores like Apple's App Store and Google Play to verify the age of every user and identify the parent or guardian of each minor. This case, known as Students Engaged in Advancing Texas v. Paxton and Computer & Communications Industry Association v. Paxton, is before the Court on its shadow docket and could fundamentally alter the First Amendment rights of children and teenagers.
Background of the ASAA and Its Constitutional Challenge
The ASAA is similar to a California law struck down in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011), which prevented minors from purchasing violent video games without adult permission. The Texas law goes further, blocking all commercially available software downloads for minors without parental consent. Despite this precedent, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit allowed the law to go into effect without mentioning Brown. The Supreme Court now faces the question of whether longstanding First Amendment protections must yield to address new social problems created by the internet.
Historical Context of Free Speech in the U.S.
Freedom of speech in the United States is a relatively recent development. For most of American history, the First Amendment was largely unenforced. At the end of World War I, a unanimous Supreme Court upheld a ten-year prison sentence for a politician who opposed the draft. As recently as 1951, the Court upheld convictions for organizing an unpopular political party. The Court began taking the First Amendment seriously in the latter half of the 20th century, with landmark decisions like New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) protecting press freedom, Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) protecting political speech, and Miller v. California (1973) protecting sexual speech and art. Although the Court has moved rightward, a coalition of three Democratic and three Republican justices has largely maintained this libertarian consensus.
Recent Supreme Court Trends on Minors' Rights
The Court has shown a willingness to restrict minors' rights in certain contexts. In Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), Republican justices limited public schools' ability to teach LGBTQ-themed books. In Mirabelli v. Bonta (2026), they required teachers to out transgender students to parents. In the free speech arena, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2025) upheld a Texas law requiring porn websites to verify users are over 18, effectively overruling a 2004 precedent. However, it remains unclear whether this case applies only to pornography or signals a broader shift. In Netchoice v. Fitch (2025), the Court allowed a Mississippi law barring minors from creating social media accounts without parental permission to go into effect, with Justice Kavanaugh noting it was likely unconstitutional but voting to let it stand anyway.
Overbreadth of the ASAA and Similar Laws
The First Amendment requires that restrictions on speech be narrowly tailored to serve an important governmental interest. Both the ASAA and Mississippi's social media law fail this test. The ASAA would prevent a public school student from downloading a book assigned by their English teacher without parental permission, effectively blocking access to speech the government requires them to consume. It also injures parents who wish to allow their children more freedom. Texas could have written a narrower law giving parents the option to approve purchases, rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all mandate. As an internet industry group argued, Mississippi's law requires parental consent for "discussing their faith in religious forums," "petitioning their elected representatives," "sharing vacation photos," or "learning how to solve math problems on YouTube"—activities unlikely to lead to suicide.
Impact and Future Implications
The fundamental question in these cases is whether the challenges of social media require rethinking the First Amendment. For at least three generations, American children have grown up with the freedom to read books, hear ideas, and explore beliefs that their parents may not share. If the Court upholds laws like the ASAA, it could fundamentally reshape public discourse and limit young people's access to information. The decision will determine whether children and teenagers still have First Amendment rights in the digital age.
