The U.S. Supreme Court is stepping into one of the most closely watched First Amendment disputes of the term: whether government efforts to pressure or coordinate with social media platforms to curb election-related misinformation crossed the constitutional line into unlawful censorship. The case arrives after years of litigation over contacts between federal officials and major platforms during the 2020 election cycle and its aftermath.

At the center of the dispute is a recurring constitutional question with growing practical stakes: when does government persuasion become state action? The challengers argue that officials effectively coerced platforms to remove or downgrade protected speech, particularly on contentious political topics.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has cleared the way for Florida to enforce a closely watched law restricting social-media access for children, handing the state a significant interim win in one of the country’s most important battles over youth online regulation.

The ruling allows Florida to implement a statute that bars certain social-media accounts for children under 14 and imposes additional rules governing minors’ access and account features.

Meta Platforms has reportedly agreed to a sweeping $17.1 billion settlement with 29 states to resolve allegations tied to harms suffered by children and teens on Facebook and Instagram. Beyond the headline number, the deal is notable for pairing monetary relief with operational reforms aimed at how the platforms design, market, and manage products used by minors.

That combination makes the resolution especially significant.

The Justice Department has settled a closely watched lawsuit challenging the State Department’s alleged role in funding and promoting social media censorship during the Biden administration.