In July 2024, the justices vacated the lower-court decisions in both cases due to both courts failing to perform a full First Amendment assessment of the laws, and remanded them for further consideration.

[3] The Republicans were further emboldened when Justice Clarence Thomas, in a dissenting opinion in the 2020 case Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC, suggested that Section 230 gives too much immunity to service providers and that its goals should be revisited.

The final bill would fine Internet firms if they banned a political official for more than 60 days, and instituted similar penalties on "journalistic enterprises" that operate in Florida and have either 100,000+ monthly users or 50,000+ subscribers.

The bill included an exemption for providers that were also part of a company that operated a theme park or entertainment complex in Florida, which was taken to be a specific carve-out for Disney World.

[8] This exemption was removed later after DeSantis objected to The Walt Disney Company's challenge to the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act, which detractors would refer to as the "Don't Say Gay" law.

[9] NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) challenged the law shortly after it was passed, via a lawsuit filed against Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody.

They argued that the Fifth Circuit's unexplained order deprived them of "careful review and a meaningful decision" and that reinstating the district court's stay would preserve the status quo while the law's constitutionality continued to be litigated.

[22] Observers of the Supreme Court predicted that a majority of the justices would not uphold the states' laws as they likely violate the First Amendment, and would disagree with applying different standards to the largest social media platforms compared to other smaller sites that allow creative expression by users, such as Etsy.

[28] Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a concurrence in judgement only, stating that she would not have gone as far as the majority to weigh in on aspects of the Texas law and "this Court should strive to avoid deciding more than is necessary".

According to CNN, this led both Barrett and Jackson to switch their vote to Kagan's view, as they considered Alito's stance too extreme, leading to the 6–3 decision on the majority opinion.