SCOTUS agrees to review Texas law that caused Pornhub to leave the state

Texas wanted SCOTUS to wait

The underlying case is in US District Court for the Western District of Texas. A judge in that court stayed the proceedings pending the Supreme Court's decision on whether to grant certiorari.

Paxton's brief opposing certiorari said the "First Amendment does not allow even adults to access obscenity" and that the state law only "applies to overwhelming amounts of content that meet this Court's test for adult obscenity."

Even if "the content on Petitioners' websites is not obscene as to adults, because the Constitution does not protect access to such material for children, it also does not preclude the States from requiring entities like Petitioners to determine whether their customers are adults or children," Texas said.

Paxton argued that the Supreme Court should let the sides "fully litigate the issues in the district court and on appeal," saying there is "no need for the Court to rush to judgment, and every reason to think that its analysis of the complex question would benefit from allowing the ordinary litigation (and percolation) process to unfold."

Paxton cites “advances in technology”

Paxton also wanted the Supreme Court to wait to see how other circuit appeals courts address questions raised by "advances in technology." The Supreme Court "should not address how to apply [the Ginsberg precedent] in the context of today's Internet until other circuits weigh in," Texas argued.

Given that other states' age-verification laws are being challenged, it is "only a matter of time before other circuits address the issue and can determine whether they agree with the Fifth Circuit. The Court's decision-making process will be improved following such percolation," Paxton wrote.

In a reply filed in June, the Free Speech Coalition said that "technological status makes no difference to the conflict over the governing legal question," and that "precedents cannot be discarded simply because technology evolves."

"Texas cites no case in which this Court has held the level of constitutional scrutiny varies (let alone plummets from the highest tier to the lowest) based on technological evolution. To the contrary, this Court has repeatedly held that the protections of the First Amendment, like those of other constitutional provisions, endure as technology evolves," the group said.