Supreme Court Allows Enforcement of Texas Law Restricting Minors’ App Store Access

Spectators were seen taking photos with their smartphones during a World Cup match at Houston Stadium on June 23. Amidst this activity, the Supreme Court has allowed Texas to enforce a controversial law limiting minors’ access to app stores on mobile devices while lawsuits proceed in the lower courts. The court issued an unsigned order permitting Texas to implement this law, which requires parental consent for minors to download apps.

The App Store Accountability Act, enacted by Texas in 2025, mandates app stores to verify users’ ages. It restricts individuals under 18 from downloading most applications without parental approval. The Texas legislature enacted the law intending to shield minors from harmful material.

However, multiple organizations have challenged the law, claiming it infringes on children’s freedom of speech. The challengers argue that the law is unconstitutional as per Supreme Court precedents that recognize substantial free speech rights for children. Texas counters by stating that the law targets ‘commercial speech,’ which enjoys a lower level of constitutional protection. The law does provide exceptions for emergency services apps and tools related to college entrance exams; other applications, including social media and news apps, require parental consent.

A lower court initially blocked the law, citing that it restricts minors from engaging in democratic online discourse. Yet, the conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the law in June. The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday allows the law to remain effective, but further litigation in lower courts will continue.

Similar legislation has been adopted by states such as Utah, Louisiana, and Alabama. This is not the first instance of the Supreme Court addressing internet access laws affecting minors. Previously, the court upheld a Texas statute compelling pornographic sites to verify users’ ages. However, access to pornography is treated differently than other types of online access by the court.

The Supreme Court’s current decision does not confirm the law’s constitutionality; rather, it permits enforcement as court proceedings unfold. The refusal to intervene may hint at an initial lean towards supporting the law.