SCOTUS lets Texas enforce app store law that Big Tech calls “censorship regime”

美国最高法院允许德州执行应用商店法，大型科技公司称其为“审查制度”

The Supreme Court yesterday decided not to intervene in challenges to a Texas app store law, allowing the state to enforce age-verification rules while a lawsuit continues. 美国最高法院昨日决定不对针对德州应用商店法的挑战进行干预，允许该州在诉讼期间执行年龄验证规则。

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Texas App Store Accountability Act in December 2025, finding that it likely violates the First Amendment. US District Judge Robert Pitman’s ruling prevented Texas from enforcing the law when it was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026. 2025年12月，一名联邦法官发布初步禁令，阻止了《德州应用商店问责法》的实施，认为该法案可能违反了美国宪法第一修正案。美国地方法官罗伯特·皮特曼（Robert Pitman）的裁决阻止了德州在原定于2026年1月1日生效时执行该法律。

But the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit stayed the injunction on June 4, deciding that there is “no legitimate justification for enjoining enforcement of the entire Act.” A lobby group representing Big Tech companies and an advocacy group for students then asked the Supreme Court to reinstate the injunction. 但美国第五巡回上诉法院于6月4日中止了该禁令，裁定“没有正当理由禁止执行整个法案”。随后，代表大型科技公司的游说团体和学生权益倡导组织请求最高法院恢复该禁令。

The Supreme Court denied both requests in a pair of one-sentence orders issued yesterday. “The application to vacate stay presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied,” the court said. 最高法院在昨日发布的两份单句命令中拒绝了这两项请求。法院表示：“提交给塞缪尔·阿利托（Samuel Alito）大法官并由其转交法院的撤销中止申请已被驳回。”

Yesterday’s denial means Pitman’s injunction cannot be enforced while litigation between Texas and groups challenging the law proceeds in the 5th Circuit appeals court, which has scheduled oral arguments for August 4. 昨日的驳回意味着，在德州与挑战该法律的团体之间的诉讼在第五巡回上诉法院进行期间，皮特曼的禁令无法执行。该法院已将口头辩论安排在8月4日。

Although the sides will have a chance to argue for and against the law, the 5th Circuit’s June 4 ruling indicates that Texas has an advantage. “Texas has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the district court committed several reversible errors,” a three-judge panel said in a unanimous opinion. 尽管双方都有机会就该法律进行辩论，但第五巡回法院6月4日的裁决表明德州占据优势。由三名法官组成的合议庭在一致意见中表示：“德州已有力地证明，其关于地方法院犯下多项可撤销错误的指控很可能会在实质上胜诉。”

The 5th Circuit appeals court judges said “the district court likely erred in applying strict scrutiny to significant parts, if not all, of the Act.” The Supreme Court could still hear a挑战 to the law after the 5th Circuit proceedings are over. The Supreme Court already upheld a Texas law requiring age verification on porn sites in June 2025. 第五巡回上诉法院的法官们表示，“地方法院在对该法案的重要部分（如果不是全部）适用严格审查标准时可能存在错误。”在第五巡回法院的程序结束后，最高法院仍可能审理针对该法律的挑战。最高法院已于2025年6月维持了德州一项要求色情网站进行年龄验证的法律。

Big Tech alleged “broad censorship regime”

大型科技公司指控其为“广泛的审查制度”

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), the tech lobby group challenging Texas, has called the law “a broad censorship regime on the entire universe of mobile apps” and compared it to checking IDs at bookstores and shopping malls. 挑战德州法律的科技游说团体“计算机与通信行业协会”（CCIA）称该法律是“针对整个移动应用领域的广泛审查制度”，并将其比作在书店和商场检查身份证件。

The Texas App Store Accountability Act requires app stores to determine people’s ages with a “commercially reasonable method of verification” and to impose restrictions on people under 18. Apple and Google announced plans to comply with the law last year but warned that it would harm users’ privacy. 《德州应用商店问责法》要求应用商店通过“商业上合理的验证方法”确定用户年龄，并对18岁以下人群施加限制。苹果和谷歌去年宣布了遵守该法律的计划，但警告称这将损害用户隐私。

Laws regulating speech face different levels of scrutiny depending on their nature. “When the government favors some speakers over others for their content, the law must be subject to strict scrutiny,” Pitman’s decision said. Pitman decided to apply strict scrutiny because he said the Texas law is content-based. 监管言论的法律根据其性质面临不同程度的审查。皮特曼的裁决指出：“当政府因内容而偏袒某些发言者而非其他发言者时，该法律必须接受严格审查。”皮特曼决定适用严格审查，因为他认为德州的法律是基于内容的。

The law excludes certain types of apps operated by nonprofits, government entities, and emergency services, while seeking “to shield minors from certain speech the State deems objectionable or harmful,” the district judge wrote. The 5th Circuit said Pitman is wrong. 这位地方法官写道，该法律排除了由非营利组织、政府实体和紧急服务部门运营的某些类型的应用程序，同时旨在“保护未成年人免受州政府认为令人反感或有害的言论的影响”。第五巡回法院则表示皮特曼错了。

“At most, SB2420 regulates speech that ‘proposes a commercial transaction,’ which is subject to intermediate scrutiny,” the 5th Circuit panel said, adding that “app listings propose commercial transactions, regardless of whether any monetary payment is made.” 第五巡回法院合议庭表示：“SB2420法案充其量只是监管了‘提议商业交易’的言论，这应适用中度审查标准。”并补充说，“无论是否涉及金钱支付，应用列表本身就是在提议商业交易。”

Paxton says Texas has duty to protect children

帕克斯顿称德州有保护儿童的义务

The judges’ panel further said the law would likely survive under intermediate scrutiny because it advances important governmental interests unrelated to speech and does not burden substantially more speech than is necessary to achieve those goals. 法官合议庭进一步表示，该法律在中度审查下很可能会维持有效，因为它推进了与言论无关的重要政府利益，且在实现这些目标时并未施加超出必要的言论负担。

“Requiring age verification, parental consent, and app-related content ratings likely directly and materially advances Texas’s substantial interest in protecting children’s data, safety, and privacy in a digital world… That some works protected by the First Amendment may be the object of app downloads or in-app purchases does not categorically exempt them from ordinary regulations governing commercial transactions,” the panel said. 合议庭表示：“要求年龄验证、家长同意和应用相关内容分级，很可能直接且实质性地推进了德州在数字世界中保护儿童数据、安全和隐私的重大利益……即使某些受第一修正案保护的作品可能成为应用下载或应用内购买的对象，这也不能使它们免于受商业交易常规监管的约束。”

The panel also faulted the district court for issuing a “universal” injunction that prevents the law from being enforced against anyone, rather than a more limited injunction preventing enforcement against the plaintiffs and their members. 合议庭还批评地方法院发布了“普遍性”禁令，阻止该法律对任何人执行，而不是发布更有限的、仅针对原告及其成员的禁令。

After winning in the 5th Circuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said that “Texas has not only the right, but the duty, to protect children from the harms of our modern digital space. Parents deserve to know what their children are downloading and to have the ability to stop them from accessing harmful or inappropriate content.” 在第五巡回法院胜诉后，德州总检察长肯·帕克斯顿（Ken Paxton）表示：“德州不仅有权，而且有义务保护儿童免受现代数字空间带来的伤害。家长有权知道孩子在下载什么，并有能力阻止他们接触有害或不当内容。”

The CCIA acknowledged in a press release yesterday that “the Supreme Court emergency ruling means that Texas can enforce its app store law” while litigation continues. “We look forward to an expedited hearing before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in early August to demonstrate how Texas’ App Store Accountability Act violates the First Amendment,” said CCIA CEO Matt Schruers. “People should not have to turn over personal data to access the Internet any more than they should show government identification to enter a bookstore.” CCIA在昨日的新闻稿中承认，“最高法院的紧急裁决意味着德州可以在诉讼继续期间执行其应用商店法”。CCIA首席执行官马特·施鲁尔斯（Matt Schruers）表示：“我们期待在8月初第五巡回上诉法院进行加速听证，以证明德州的《应用商店问责法》如何违反了第一修正案。人们不应该为了访问互联网而交出个人数据，就像他们不应该为了进入书店而必须出示政府身份证件一样。”

Texas already enforces age law for porn sites

德州已对色情网站执行年龄验证法

The student group challenging the Texas law is called Students Engaged in Advancing Texas. The law “would render virtually the entire Internet—not to mention the distribution of every book, newspaper, magazine, movie, or record album—‘commercial speech’ the government could more readily ban, restrict, edit, or compel,” the group told the Supreme Court. 挑战德州法律的学生团体名为“致力于推动德州发展的学生”（Students Engaged in Advancing Texas）。该组织告诉最高法院，这项法律“将使几乎整个互联网——更不用说每一本书、报纸、杂志、电影或唱片的发行——都变成政府可以更容易地禁止、限制、编辑或强制执行的‘商业言论’”。

The student group pointed out that Texas is already allowed to protect minors under the porn-site age law upheld by the Supreme Court last year. In contrast with the porn-site law, the Texas App Store Accountability Act has a broader effect on protected speech. 该学生团体指出，根据最高法院去年维持的色情网站年龄验证法，德州已经获准保护未成年人。与色情网站法相比，《德州应用商店问责法》对受保护言论的影响更为广泛。