A tech industry group fighting in support of free speech rights suffered defeat at the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday when the justices opted not to intervene against a state law aimed at protecting minors from potential harm online.

The Supreme Court declined to vacate a stay of a preliminary injunction against a Mississippi law that bars minors from accessing several popular social media platforms unless they have obtained parental consent, as Fox News reported.

That means the state can continue to enforce the law, at least while the case proceeds on the merits in the lower courts, but that situation could change eventually, as one of the justices indicated that Mississippi's law will likely be found unconstitutional.

Mississippi's social media law for minors

In 2024, according to SCOTUSblog, after a teenage victim of "sextortion" on social media committed suicide, Mississippi passed a law that restricted minors' access to social media platforms -- including Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, Reddit, Snapchat, X, and YouTube, among others -- unless those minors first obtained the consent of their parents.

The law further required the platforms to verify the age of users, as well as to take steps to protect minors from harmful content, and imposed civil and criminal penalties, including fines of up to $10,000 per incident, for failures to comply with the requirements.

NetChoice, a tech industry group that represents some of the targeted platforms, filed a lawsuit in federal court on First Amendment free speech grounds and obtained a preliminary injunction in June against the enforcement of the law from U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden, who acknowledged the state's "compelling interest" in protecting children but determined that it could be done in a less restrictive manner.

The state sought relief from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided in July, without explanation, to impose a stay that blocked the injunction and allowed the law to be enforced.

That decision prompted NetChoice to file an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court to have the stay lifted and the injunction reimposed, but to no avail.

Supreme Court sides with the state -- for now

In an unsigned order on Thursday, the Supreme Court noted without explanation or a vote count that NetChoice's application to vacate the stay had been denied.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, however, offered up his thoughts on the matter in a brief concurring opinion that did not bode well for the future of Mississippi's law restricting the access of minors to popular social media platforms, in light of the fact that similar laws in other states have been repeatedly struck down.

"I concur in the Court’s denial of NetChoice’s application for interim relief because NetChoice has not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time," Kavanaugh wrote.

"To be clear, NetChoice has, in my view, demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on the merits -- namely, that enforcement of the Mississippi law would likely violate its members’ First Amendment rights under this Court’s precedents," he continued. "Given those precedents, it is no surprise that the District Court in this case enjoined enforcement of the Mississippi law and that seven other Federal District Courts have likewise enjoined enforcement of similar state laws."

"In short, under this Court’s case law as it currently stands, the Mississippi law is likely unconstitutional," the justice added. "Nonetheless, because NetChoice has not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time, I concur in the Court’s denial of the application for interim relief."

According to Fox News, the case will now return to the district court to proceed on the merits, but will almost certainly return to the appellate court and Supreme Court before all is said and done.