Fourth Circuit: Virginia Minors Social Media Law Injunction Appealed

• The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is reviewing a Virginia law that limits minors' daily social media screen time.
• U.S. District Judge Patricia Giles previously issued a preliminary injunction, blocking the law's enforcement due to likely First Amendment violations.
• The 2025 Virginia law restricts users under 16 to one hour per social media platform daily, though parents can adjust this limit.
• NetChoice, representing major online services, argues the law infringes on minors' First Amendment rights and parental authority.
• Virginia's Solicitor General contends the law is a narrowly tailored and unique response to protect young people from social media addiction.

The central challenge before the Fourth Circuit is to reconcile a state's compelling interest in safeguarding its youth with the constitutional protections afforded to minors' First Amendment rights in the digital age.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently convened to deliberate on the constitutionality of a Virginia law designed to restrict minors' access to social media platforms. This appellate review follows a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Patricia Giles, a Joe Biden appointee, who halted the law's enforcement. Judge Giles sided with NetChoice, a prominent trade association representing various online services including X, YouTube, Netflix, Google, and Amazon, concluding that the legislation likely infringes upon First Amendment rights.

The appellate hearing on Wednesday focused on the delicate balance between a state's prerogative to shield its younger population from potential online harms and the fundamental First Amendment protections extended to minors. The court is tasked with determining the extent to which states can regulate digital interactions for those under 18 without overstepping constitutional boundaries, a question that has seen similar state-level efforts challenged across the country.

The Virginia law, enacted on a bipartisan basis in 2025, mandates that social media platforms limit users under the age of 16 to a maximum of one hour of screen time per platform daily. While the statute sets this default, it also grants parents the flexibility to either increase or decrease these daily limits for their children. This legislative approach by Virginia is not unique; however, courts have previously struck down comparable state initiatives aimed at curbing minors' social media usage in several other states, including Louisiana, Arkansas, Ohio, George, Utah, and Texas.

Virginia's Solicitor General, Tillman Breckenridge, defended the law, asserting that it is both narrowly tailored and distinct from other failed attempts. Breckenridge argued that the Commonwealth bears a responsibility to protect its young citizens from the perils of social media addiction, emphasizing that such platforms can fundamentally alter children's brains. He characterized Virginia's measure as a 'measured and unique response' to mitigate excessive exposure, clarifying that the law restricts access to the platforms themselves, rather than the content they host. Conversely, NetChoice attorney Erin Murphy of Clement Murphy challenged the premise that addiction concerns alone justify the law. Murphy contended that if Virginia's logic were to prevail, the state could similarly restrict minors from engaging with other forms of speech, such as video games, cartoons, novels, or podcasts, based on speculative harm from 'too much' exposure. She stressed that the First Amendment does not confer such broad and potentially dangerous authority upon the state, arguing that parents, not the government, are the primary decision-makers regarding their children's online engagement. Murphy also highlighted that the law's definition of social media platforms lacks content neutrality, as it exempts other online services offering news, sports, and entertainment, like ESPN's website, from similar regulations.

The central challenge before the Fourth Circuit is to reconcile a state's compelling interest in safeguarding its youth with the constitutional protections afforded to minors' First Amendment rights in the digital age. This case underscores a broader national debate regarding the impact of social media on adolescent development and the appropriate scope of governmental intervention. U.S. Circuit Judge Roger Gregory, a George W. Bush appointee, pressed NetChoice on the state's inherent duty to protect children from the documented harms associated with prolonged social media engagement, noting that 'the commonwealth of Virginia has a duty to try and protect people.'

However, U.S. Circuit Judge Harvie Wilkinson, a Ronald Reagan appointee, while acknowledging the state's legitimate interest in protecting minors, voiced concerns about the potential burden the law places on minors' First Amendment rights, drawing a parallel to George Orwell's '1984.' NetChoice attorney Erin Murphy further underscored that neither the Supreme Court nor the Fourth Circuit has ever accepted the notion that the First Amendment can be disregarded simply because a state identifies a harm it seeks to address. She pointed to historical instances where governments have raised concerns about new mediums, such as television and violent video games, and their perceived impact on minors' mental development and potential for addiction, suggesting a recurring pattern in these regulatory efforts.

Lawyers advising social media platforms or parents should monitor the Fourth Circuit's decision closely, as it will clarify the constitutional limits on state-level regulation of minors' online access and First Amendment rights, impacting compliance strategies and potential challenges to similar laws in other states.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service