NetChoice v. Fitch

_________________
_________________
1 Cite as: 606 U. S. ____ (2025)
K
AVANAUGH, J., concurring
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 25A97
NETCHOICE, LLC v. LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSISSIPPI
ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY
[August 14, 2025]
The application to vacate stay presented to JUSTICE
ALITO and by him referred to the Court is denied.
J
USTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring in the denial of the
application to vacate stay.
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. See Response in Opposition 37–39.
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. See Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U. S. 707
(2024); Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U. S.
786 (2011); cf. Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, 606
U. S. ___ (2025). 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. See No. 1:24–cv–170 (SD Miss., June 18, 2025);
NetChoice, LLC v. Yost, 716 F. Supp. 3d 539 (SD Ohio
2024); Computer & Communications Industry Assn. v.
Paxton, 747 F. Supp. 3d 1011 (WD Tex. 2024); NetChoice,
LLC v. Reyes, 748 F. Supp. 3d 1105 (Utah 2024); NetChoice,
LLC v. Bonta, 770 F. Supp. 3d 1164 (ND Cal. 2025);

2 NETCHOICE, LLC v. FITCH
K
AVANAUGH, J., concurring
NetChoice, LLC v. Griffin, No. 5:23–cv–5105 (WD Ark.,
Mar. 31, 2025); Computer & Communications Industry
Assn. v. Uthmeier, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, No. 4:24–cv–438
(ND Fla., June 3, 2025); NetChoice v. Carr, ___ F. Supp. 3d
___, No. 1:25–cv–2422 (ND Ga., June 26, 2025).
In short, under this Court’s case law as it currently
stands, the Mississippi law is likely unconstitutional.
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.