A Florida law prohibits “social media platforms” from banning political candidates, limiting the distribution or prioritization of posts by or about them. It also prohibits taking any action to limit distribution of posts by “journalistic enterprises.” deplatforming any political candidates (and from prioritizing or shadow banning their posts) or those of “journalistic enterprises.” Under the guise of “prohibiting censorship,” these laws seek to replace the private entities’ editorial voice with preferences dictated by the government. The ACLU’s position is that the government’s desire to have private speakers distribute more of any viewpoint is not a permissible basis for regulating the editorial decisions of private platforms. Choosing what not to publish and how to prioritize what is published is protected expression. On the very largest platforms, free expression values are best served if companies choose to preserve as much political speech as possible, including the speech of public figures. But, regardless of what platforms ought to permit as a matter of corporate policy, the government can’t constitutionally mandate what they ultimately choose. We filed amicus briefs in the district court (which granted a preliminary injunction on June 30, 2021) and in the Eleventh Circuit (which, on May 23, 2022, affirmed in part and reversed in part the injunction). The Supreme Court granted review, and the ACLU’s amicus brief (joining partners) was filed on December 5, 2023. Oral argument was held on February 26, 2024, and the Supreme Court issued its decision on July 1, 2024, asking the court below to reconsider the case under a particular standard. In August 2024, the Eleventh Circuit sent the case back to the district court, where the case is proceeding again. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in November 2024. On May 22, 2025, the district court denied the motions to dismiss the case. Trial is set for March 9, 2026.