Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union
Headline: Ruling upholds use of community standards in Child Online Protection Act, finding that rule alone is not facially unconstitutional while enforcement stays blocked pending lower-court review, affecting commercial websites.
Holding:
- Leaves enforcement blocked while lower courts revisit COPA’s other constitutional claims.
- Allows the law’s community-standards rule to survive facial challenge, keeping prosecution possible later.
- Creates uncertainty for commercial websites about age-verification and content choices.
Summary
Background
The federal government, through the Attorney General, defended the Child Online Protection Act, a law that makes commercial Web communications available to minors that are harmful to minors unlawful. A group of Internet publishers and civil liberties organizations, many running sites that sell advertising or goods, sued and obtained a district court injunction blocking COPA. The Third Circuit affirmed the injunction, focusing on COPA’s use of community standards, and the Government appealed.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Thomas, narrowed its review to whether relying on community standards alone renders COPA facially unconstitutional. The Court noted COPA is narrower than the earlier Communications Decency Act because it targets only commercial Web material and uses a Miller-style three-part test (prurient appeal, patently offensive, and lack of serious value for minors). The plurality concluded variation in local community standards does not by itself produce substantial overbreadth, vacated the Third Circuit’s judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.
Real world impact
The decision rejects the specific facial challenge to community standards but leaves other constitutional claims for lower courts to resolve. Enforcement of COPA remains enjoined for now, so commercial Web publishers face ongoing uncertainty about age verification and content rules while prosecutions are paused.
Dissents or concurrances
Justices O’Connor and Breyer suggested a national adult standard; Justice Kennedy agreed remand was required and warned of real overbreadth risks; Justice Stevens dissented, arguing community standards on the Internet would suppress protected speech.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?