The U.S. Supreme Court has sent an important First Amendment case back to lower federal courts on Monday morning, meaning Florida will have to continue its years-long fight to defend a social media moderation law.

That law, passed by lawmakers and approved by Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2021, barred social media platforms from suspending or banning political candidates and was itself barred by federal courts that said such content moderation was protected by the First Amendment. That measure also allowed Floridians to sue those platforms if they’d been unfairly banned.

It came in the months after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection and the social media suspensions of people who made false claims of a stolen election, such as former President Donald Trump.

The block remains in effect as the litigation continues.

In an opinion written by Obama-appointed Justice Elena Kagan, the Supreme Court said the lower courts didn’t do a proper First Amendment analysis of the Florida law, as well as a Texas one.

“The laws appear to apply beyond Facebook’s News Feed and its ilk,” Kagan wrote, with no justices dissenting. “But it’s not clear to what extent, if at all, they affect social-media giants’ other services, like direct messaging, or what they have to say about other platforms and functions.”

Both sides in First Amendment case claim victory

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody said on social media that justices “sided” with Florida.

“We are pleased that SCOTUS agreed with Florida and rejected the lower court’s flawed reasoning—invalidating our social media law. While there are aspects of the decision we disagree with, we look forward to continuing to defend state law,” she wrote in a post.

Meanwhile, NetChoice, one of the social media trade associations that challenged the law, called the decision a “victory for First Amendment rights online.”

“As our cases head back to the lower courts for consideration, the Supreme Court agreed with all our First Amendment arguments. Free speech is a cornerstone of our republic,” said Chris Marchese, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, in a statement.

“We are gratified to see the Supreme Court acknowledge the Constitution’s unparalleled protections for free speech, including the world’s most important communications tool, the internet.”

One focal point is whether social media platforms have the same content moderation protections as newspapers. Florida has countered that the platforms are more like telephone service providers, which have less ability to restrict the content of its users.

And another question Kagan said needed to be figured out is if social media does have those protections, does it give the platforms the ability not only to regulate feeds but also private messages?

“Regulation of those diverse activities could well fall on different sides of the constitutional line,” Kagan wrote. “To decide the facial challenges here, the courts below must explore the laws’ full range of applications—the constitutionally impermissible and permissible both—and compare the two sets”

While the litigation is ongoing, the ultimate decisions could create huge First Amendment precedent and forever alter the social media landscape.

Not first social media court decision: Fate of Florida’s blocked social media law looms after U.S. Supreme Court opinion

State defends law before Supreme Court: Florida makes argument in pivotal Supreme Court case, could forever change social media

This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA TODAY Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Douglas Soule can be reached at DSoule@gannett.com.

This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Supreme Court punts on Florida social media case, both sides claim win