By Dan Frieth – Reclaim The Net
The Supreme Court’s choice to let Mississippi enforce its new age verification law is part of a growing shift toward digital ID requirements across the internet, raising urgent concerns about privacy and censorship.
By declining to block the law while legal challenges continue, the Court has effectively allowed states to begin tying online activity to users’ real-world identities, a move that could reshape how people access information and speak freely online.
We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.
Mississippi’s HB 1126 requires social media platforms to verify a user’s age before allowing them to create an account. Those under 18 must obtain parental permission. Platforms are also required to restrict access to what the state broadly labels as “harmful” content. For companies to comply, identity checks will be necessary, meaning users may soon need to provide government IDs or other personal documents just to post or view content on public platforms.
The Supreme Court has already allowed a similar Texas law to be enforced.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing separately from the Court’s unsigned order, stated that the law is “likely unconstitutional” and said NetChoice had “likely” shown that enforcement would violate the First Amendment. Still, the Court allowed the law to take effect, saying the trade group had not shown a strong enough risk of harm to justify emergency relief.
NetChoice, which includes companies such as Meta, Google, Amazon, Reddit, and Discord, argues that mandatory age checks for general-purpose platforms violate free speech protections. The group had previously won a ruling to block the law, but that decision was overturned in April by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said the ruling was a delay, not a defeat. “Although we’re disappointed with the Court’s decision, Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed in defending the First Amendment — not just in this case but across all NetChoice’s ID-for-Speech lawsuits,” he said.
The larger implications of the law go far beyond youth safety. It advances the infrastructure for an internet where identity is verified at the door. This kind of system connects everything a person says, reads, or searches online to a name, a date of birth, and possibly a government ID.
It increases the risk of censorship, as users may be less likely to express controversial or unpopular views if those comments are permanently tied to their legal identity. It also amplifies the risk of data exposure, since any breach could link personal data to specific online activity.
Similar systems are already gaining ground in other countries. The United Kingdom has begun enforcing rules that ask users to confirm their age through ID cards, biometric scans, or credit card details.
Although these efforts are framed as protections for children, they also create large databases of verified identity information that can be misused, leaked, or repurposed for surveillance.
By letting the Mississippi law proceed, the Court has, at least for now, cleared the path for more states to implement similar systems.