The Debate over Affirmative Action at West Point and the Fourteenth Amendment

By: Sarah Wejman

Edited by: Valerie Chu and Simon Carr

Within less than fifty years, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) first ruled that affirmative action was constitutional and then that it wasn’t. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), SCOTUS ruled that the purpose and reasoning for Harvard and other institutions’ race-based admissions processes were unable to avoid racial stereotypes and thus did not pass a strict scrutiny test. The case clarified that universities are welcome to consider an applicant’s race, how their lives were impacted by it, and what they could uniquely contribute to the institution. [1] Just last month on January 26, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) acted once again by asking SCOTUS to review the race-conscious admissions of West Point. [2] The U.S. Justice Department stated that West Point’s race-based admissions is a “vital pipeline to the officer corps” and is essential to ensuring a diverse class of military officers. [3]

The reason that West Point was not included in the ruling of the 2023 case is because of a footnote that Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion: “No military academy is a party to these cases, however, and none of the courts below addressed the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context.” [4] A lower court declined to grant a preliminary injunction, so SFFA, while awaiting the Second Circuit’s ruling, filed an emergency appeal to SCOTUS due to West Point’s approaching January 31 application deadline. [5]

The SFFA v. Harvard case effectively overturned the precedent of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), an affirmative action case involving a white student denied admission from the Medical School of the University of California at Davis (UCD). The UCD race-based admissions were more involved than Harvard’s because they used racial quotas by setting aside sixteen seats in their class of one hundred members for minorities. SCOTUS ruled that racial quotas are unconstitutional, but universities are permitted to use race-based classifications to ensure an ethnically diverse institution. [6]

Both of these cases relied on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which protects against discrimination by the states based on one’s race, ethnicity, gender, religion, and other identifying factors. Racial-based classifications receive the highest level of scrutiny, strict scrutiny, which requires that the state proves that the discrimination is furthering an important government interest and that the law is substantially related to such interests. [7] While Bakke ruled that ethnic diversity was a compelling interest for the state, the Court in Harvard ruled that this standard was not met since racial stereotypes permeated the admissions system, creating a substantial disadvantage for many minority applicants.

The Fourteenth Amendment applies to states, meaning education-wise it affects publicly owned schools. However, precedent holds that violations against Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are also violations of the Equal Protection Clause. Title VI applies to all institutions that receive any sort of federal funding, which most private schools including Harvard do. Thus through indirect means, the Fourteenth Amendment does apply.

Whether SCOTUS will even accept this case is still uncertain. However, based on their recent rulings, it seems unlikely that West Point will be able to continue to consider race to the extent that they do.

Notes:

1. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard, 600 U.S. (2023)

2. Kruzel, John , and Andrew Chung. “US Supreme Court Is Asked to Stop West Point from Considering Race in Admissions.” Reuters, January 26, 2024. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-is-asked-stop-west-pointconsidering-race-admissions-2024-01-27/.

3. Kruzel and Chung, “US Supreme Court Is Asked”

4. Reichmann, Kelsey. “Supreme Court Asked to Halt Use of Race in Admissions at West Point.” Courthouse News Service, January 26, 2024. https://www.courthousenews.com/supreme-court-asked-to-halt-use-of-race-inadmissions-at-west-point/.

5. Reichmann, “Supreme Court Asked”

6. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)

7. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. “Strict Scrutiny.” Accessed January 28, 2024. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny.

Bibliography:

Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. “Strict Scrutiny.” Accessed January 28, 2024. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny.

Kruzel, John , and Andrew Chung. “US Supreme Court Is Asked to Stop West Point from Considering Race in Admissions.” Reuters, January 26, 2024.https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-is-asked-stop-west-point-considering-race-admissions-2024-01-27/.Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)

Reichmann, Kelsey. “Supreme Court Asked to Halt Use of Race in Admissions at West Point.” Courthouse News Service, January 26, 2024.https://www.courthousenews.com/supreme-court-asked-to-halt-use-of-race-in-admissions-at-west-point/.Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard, 600 U.S. (2023)

Cox v. Texas is the First Pushback Since Roe v. Wade

By: Ana Cucalon

Edited by: Maddy Bennett and Olivia Paik

In a Texas state court, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a case on behalf of Kate Cox, a pregnant woman requesting an urgent abortion. A week before the filing of this case requesting a legal abortion in the state of Texas, Cox discovered she had Trisomy 18, a prenatal disorder that causes several structural defects in the fetus and ultimately leads to fetal death. Cox had already had two cesarean procedures. A third cesarean section would be required if she continued her pregnancy. Her physicians cautioned her that going full-term could endanger her life and future fertility, as a third C-section would put her at a higher risk of developing several major health issues. Therefore, Cox and her husband decided an abortion would be the best option for their family. Cox sought the court's temporary overturn of the state's abortion prohibitions to obtain the urgent care she needed and avoid the grave risks to her life and health associated with remaining pregnant. [1] In light of Roe vs. Wade being recently overturned, this trial garnered national recognition as Texas's first case on behalf of a pregnant woman seeking legal emergency abortion care.

Texas has some of the strictest abortion laws in the country, and except for medical emergencies, all abortions beyond six weeks of pregnancy are illegal under current law. Additionally, The Texas Heartbeat Bill forbids healthcare providers from performing an abortion if they detect a fetal heartbeat. Because abortion is illegal, doctors and hospitals that perform abortions are criminally liable and may face dire consequences, including up to ninety-nine years in prison and fines exceeding ten thousand dollars. Doctors can only perform abortions to save a life or to avoid damage to major bodily functions. Only if doctors demonstrate reasonable medical judgment in treating medical complications can they avoid conviction (but not prosecution). [2] The problem is that because this legislation is so new and famously vague, medical providers and legal scholars alike are unsure of what constitutes a legal abortion. 

In the trial, Kate Cox’s lawyer sought to convince the judge that Kate needed an abortion to avoid critical damage to critical bodily functions. To do so, her attorney made two primary arguments. First, her pregnancy was putting her in serious medical risk. Kate had already been to the emergency room several times the week of the case, and her doctors cautioned that Kate’s condition would keep getting worse as the pregnancy continued. Second, Kate’s fertility was at serious risk. Kate’s fetus would not survive longer than a few days out of the womb, and carrying out the non-viable pregnancy would put the Texas mother, who was hoping for another child, in danger of not being able to conceive again. The plaintiff argued that by allowing Kate this abortion, the judge would be saving the lives of any future children. [3]

In response, the attorney representing the state of Texas laid out his claim. He argued that the standard for abortions is very clear and objective, and that Kate Cox is simply not allowed an abortion based on it. Specifically, he said that this argumental case is hypothetical; because Kate Cox isn’t at immediate risk, the Texas law of medical emergencies does not apply. [4] In response, the plaintiff argued that the law is not clear, as there are many cases of doctors being unable to decide what medical exemptions warrant legal abortions. Cox’s attorney implored the court that the state needs to at least clarify the law, because until that is done, the state can always find a doctor to say that the medical judgment of a health provider who gave an abortion was not “reasonable”, putting doctors at risk whenever they try to make that decision. [5]

Surprisingly, the judge quickly made a decision; she granted Kate Cox temporary permission to receive an abortion, stating that “the idea that Ms. Cox wants desperately to be a parent and that this law might actually cost her to lose that ability is shocking and would be a genuine miscarriage of justice”. [6]

Yet, that was not the end of Kate Cox’s fight with Texas. State attorney Ken Packson immediately appealed the ruling, sending letters to the hospitals where Kate Cox had admittance, saying that even though she was allowed to get the abortion, were any Texas doctor to perform it, they would be criminally charged. The Texas Supreme Court formally followed in this threat, blocking the restraining order and declaring the lower court ruling to be an error. Since her time was limited, Kate Cox decided she needed to cross state borders to get her abortion before it was too late. [7]

This case is important for several reasons. First, this case called out Texas’s bluff: the state had previously claimed that rather than the abortion law itself being problematic, the issue was with how physicians were applying the legal standard warranting lawful abortions. During a July hearing, a Texas state attorney questioned several women who were suing the state for abortion denials, questioning why they were suing Texas instead of their doctors. The state's attorney repeatedly questioned, “Did Attorney General Ken Paxton tell you you couldn’t get an abortion? Did anyone, working in any capacity for the state, tell you you couldn’t get an abortion?”. Despite Cox having been granted a temporary restraining order that permitted her to receive a legal abortion on an individual case basis, Texas state attorneys used every possible resource to circumvent Cox's ability to use the restraining order granted to obtain a lawful abortion in lieu of the state's legal standard. Second, this case highlighted serious issues with the law itself. Due to the case, the state is now forced to answer a difficult question: How much of a risk to your health does there have to be for a doctor to say that, in their reasonable medical judgment, you need an abortion? [8]

Finally, this case fundamentally shifted the discourse surrounding abortion, irrespective of party affiliation. Kate’s story counters the generalization that only irresponsible young girls or adolescent females use abortions as a form of birth control. It sets a precedent for the future, one in which people are now considering all the cases where patients may need abortions that are medically necessary beyond the use of abortion as an emergency method for pregnancy termination or contraception. Most importantly, it challenges the polarity of politics around abortion and urges the legal system to consider female autonomy as a nonpartisan fundamental right warranting protection amidst the backdrop of increasingly polarized conservative and liberal discourse. 

Notes:

1. Center for Reproductive Rights. 2017. “Cox v. Texas: The Case in Depth.” https://reproductiverights.org/case/cox-v-texas/cox-v-texas-case-in-depth/.

2. Varghese, Benson. 2023. “What is the Texas Abortion Law? (Dec 2023 Update).” Varghese Summersett. https://versustexas.com/texas-abortion-law/.

3. The Daily, The New York Times. 2023. “The Woman Who Fought the Texas Abortion Ban” (The New York Times, December 14, 2023).https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/14/podcasts/the-daily/texas-abortion-ban.html.

4. (The Daily, The New York Times 2023)

5. (The Daily, The New York Times 2023)

6. (The Daily, The New York Times 2023)

7. Smith, Tracy. 2024. “Texas mother Kate Cox on the outcome of her legal fight for an abortion: "It was crushing."” (CBS News, January 14, 2024). https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kate-cox-on-her-legal-fight-for-abortion-trisomy-18/.

8. “Kate Cox's case tests Texas abortion laws.” (The Texas Tribune, December 13, 2023). https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/13/texas-abortion-lawsuit/.

Bibliography:

“Cox v. Texas: The Case in Depth.” 2017. Center for Reproductive Rights. https://reproductiverights.org/case/cox-v-texas/cox-v-texas-case-in-depth/.

The Daily, The New York Times. 2023. “The Woman Who Fought the Texas Abortion Ban” The New York Times, December 14, 2023.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/14/podcasts/the-daily/texas-abortion-ban.html.

Smith, Tracy. 2024. “Texas mother Kate Cox on the outcome of her legal fight for an abortion: "It was crushing."” CBS News, January 14, 2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kate-cox-on-her-legal-fight-for-abortion-trisomy-18/.

The Texas Tribune. 2023. “Kate Cox's case tests Texas abortion laws.” December 13, 2023. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/13/texas-abortion-lawsuit/.

Varghese, Benson. “What is the Texas Abortion Law? (Dec 2023 Update).” Varghese Summersett. Accessed January 26, 2024. https://versustexas.com/texas-abortion-law/.

Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier: An Uncertain Future for Public Official-Constituent Engagement via Social Media

By: Pavan Acharya

Edited by: Jonathan Perkins and Grace Wu

In recent years, the Supreme Court has heard a variety of cases related to social media,  particularly those involving potential violations of First Amendment free speech protections. 

This term alone, the High Court has already heard at least three cases involving social media, including two related to state regulation of various platforms. [1] However, depending on the justices’ rulings, two other cases could have much different effects on the way public officials communicate with their constituents. In Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, both of which the Supreme Court heard in late October, the Supreme Court will decide whether a public official’s social media activity is an example of state action subject to the First Amendment. [2] 

The subject of Lindke is the social media account of John Freed, the city manager of Port Huron, Michigan — a small city with a population of around 29,000. [3] Freed has operated a private Facebook account since he was in college. However, after the account grew too popular, he turned it into a “page” so anyone could follow him there. When he was appointed city manager in 2014, Freed updated his page to reflect the new title. [4] In 2020, a resident named Kevin Lindke commented on one of Freed’s posts, expressing discontent with the city manager’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Freed proceeded to delete the comment and block Lindke, who then sued Freed on the grounds that Freed had violated his First Amendment rights. Similarly, in O’Connor-Ratcliff, two pairs of parents were blocked from their District Board of Trustees Facebook page as a result of comments they left on the page. [5]

Both Lindke and O’Connor-Ratcliff, however, are not novel cases but rather follow in the footsteps of a similar — but now moot — litigation. A former case, commonly referred to as Trump v. Knight Institute, would have resolved the question of whether former President Donald Trump’s decision to block certain individuals from his personal Twitter account constituted a violation of their First Amendment rights. [6] In Trump, the government — who was the defendant — conceded that Trump blocked people from his Twitter account after they criticized either him or his administration’s policies. [7] As a result, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Trump had engaged in “unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination” by blocking the users since his Twitter account constituted a “public forum.” Due to President Joe Biden’s election victory in 2020 and former President Trump’s ban from Twitter in early 2021, the Supreme Court ended the lawsuit in April 2021. Though the court did not hear the case or address its merits, Justice Clarence Thomas did provide his thoughts in a concurring opinion. [8] While Thomas wrote that digital platforms like Twitter provide “historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including by government actors,” he also warned that much of this speech could be regulated by private actors. [9]

While Lindke and O’Connor-Ratcliff involve a different social media platform than the Trump case, similar questions of private versus public control over speech may prevail. Additionally, regardless of the outcome, the justices’ ruling could have a significant impact on how public officials communicate with their constituents via social media moving forward. [10] Should the Court rule in favor of the private citizen in both cases, then public officials moving forward may feel more obligated to share information related to their official duties on public social media accounts. If the Court rules the opposite, then public officials may feel more encouraged to share important information related to their duties through unofficial channels, such as personal social media accounts. Based on the hearings for both cases held in October, it is unclear how the justices will rule, or what legal tests they may employ. [11] As these cases are some of the first of their kind to reach the nation’s highest court, it is still to be determined whether the final ruling will provide a set of specific ground rules for how public officials can interact with their constituents through private social media accounts. If the final rulings are open-ended and non-specific, the way public officials interact with everyday citizens via social media may change drastically in the near future.

Notes:

1. Brian Fung. “US Supreme Court Prepares to Hear Landmark Social Media Cases.” CNN, 25 Feb. 2024, www.cnn.com/2024/02/25/tech/us-supreme-court-landmark-social-media-cases/index.html. 

2. Lindke v. Freed. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lindke-v-freed/. Accessed 29 Feb. 2024.

3. Jeff Neal. “The Supreme Court Takes on (Anti)Social Media.” Harvard Law Today, 27 Oct. 2024, https://hls.harvard.edu/today/supreme-court-takes-on-social-media-in-lindke-v-freed-and-oconnor-ratcliff-v-garnier/.

4. “---.” Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-611. Accessed 29 Feb. 2024.

5. O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier. Cornell Law School, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/22-324. Accessed 29 Feb. 2024.

6. “Knight Institute v. Trump.” Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, https://knightcolumbia.org/cases/knight-institute-v-trump. Accessed 29 Feb. 2024.

7. Naomi R. Buchwald. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Trump, No. 18-1691 (2d Cir. 2019). 9 July 2019, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/18-1691/18-1691-2019-07-09.html.

8. “Supreme Court Ends Long-Running Lawsuit Over Trump’s Now-Defunct Twitter Account.” Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, 5 Apr. 2021, https://knightcolumbia.org/content/supreme-court-ends-long-running-lawsuit-over-trumps-now-defunct-twitter-account.

9. Clarence Thomas. Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 5 Apr. 2021, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-197_5ie6.pdf.

10. Olivia B. Hoff, et al. “Supreme Court Grants Cert in Lindke and O’Connor-Ratcliff.” Lawfare, 24 May 2023, https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/supreme-court-grants-cert-in-lindke-and-o-connor-ratcliff.

11. Ian Millhiser. “The Supreme Court Seems Stumped by Two Cases about Free Speech Online.” Vox, 31 Oct. 2023, https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/10/31/23940738/supreme-court-twitter-facebook-oconnor-ratcliff-garnier-lindke-freed-first-amendment.

Bibliography:

Buchwald, Naomi R. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Trump, No. 18-1691 (2d Cir. 2019). 9 July 2019, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/18-1691/18-1691-2019-07-09.html.

Fung, Brian. “US Supreme Court Prepares to Hear Landmark Social Media Cases.” CNN, 25 Feb. 2024, www.cnn.com/2024/02/25/tech/us-supreme-court-landmark-social-media-cases/index.html. 

Hoff, Olivia B., et al. “Supreme Court Grants Cert in Lindke and O’Connor-Ratcliff.” Lawfare, 24 May 2023, https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/supreme-court-grants-cert-in-lindke-and-o-connor-ratcliff.

“Knight Institute v. Trump.” Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, https://knightcolumbia.org/cases/knight-institute-v-trump. Accessed 29 Feb. 2024.

Lindke v. Freed. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lindke-v-freed/. Accessed 29 Feb. 2024.

“---.” Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-611. Accessed 29 Feb. 2024.

Millhiser, Ian. “The Supreme Court Seems Stumped by Two Cases about Free Speech Online.” Vox, 31 Oct. 2023, https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/10/31/23940738/supreme-court-twitter-facebook-oconnor-ratcliff-garnier-lindke-freed-first-amendment.

Neal, Jeff. “The Supreme Court Takes on (Anti)Social Media.” Harvard Law Today, 27 Oct. 2024, https://hls.harvard.edu/today/supreme-court-takes-on-social-media-in-lindke-v-freed-and-oconnor-ratcliff-v-garnier/.

O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier. Cornell Law School, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/22-324. Accessed 29 Feb. 2024.

“Supreme Court Ends Long-Running Lawsuit Over Trump’s Now-Defunct Twitter Account.” Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, 5 Apr. 2021, https://knightcolumbia.org/content/supreme-court-ends-long-running-lawsuit-over-trumps-now-defunct-twitter-account.

Thomas, Clarence. Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 5 Apr. 2021, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-197_5ie6.pdf.

Florida’s Proposed Ban on Social Media for Minors and Its Controversy over Individual Rights

By: Sarah Wejman

Edited by: Clark mahoney and Connor Tooman

The pervasive rise of social media over the past couple decades has created a new generation of youth that is attached to their phones and instant communication. 95% of teens between the ages of 13 and 17 use social media, and over a third use it “almost constantly.” [1] Very recently on February 22, Florida’s legislature passed the HB 1 Bill that bans minors under the age of 16 from social media platforms in order to protect them from online risks to mental health, with goals to reduce cyberbullying and youth suicide rates. [2] With a vote count of 108-7 in the Florida House of Representatives and 23-14 in the Senate, it was a generally welcomed and fought for bill by the legislators. However, a  number of constitutional concerns have arisen and might very well change the outcome of this rather aggressive bill.

Specifically, the law targets any social media platform that, “tracks user activity, allows children to upload material and interact with others, and uses addictive features designed to cause excessive or compulsive use.” [3] This would likely include platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, and YouTube. The bill would require these companies to delete existing accounts of minors and also develop measures that would prevent future accounts from being made for those under the age threshold. [4]

Florida governor Ron Desantis was a proponent for the overall aims of the bill, but ended up vetoing it. Prior to his veto, he expressed that it is critical to, “strike that proper balance when you’re looking at these things between policy that is helping parents get to where they want versus policy that may be outright overruling parents.” [5] Similar bills were proposed in other states like Arkansas and Ohio, but federal courts blocked their less restrictive laws over issues  involving the free speech rights of social media companies and the right of minors to have access to social media. [6] Last year, Utah became the first state to pass a law requiring parental consent for social media use for those under 18, and also prohibited minors from using social media from 10:30pm to 6:30am. [7] This law is less objectionable to many than an outright ban, although the state is currently facing lawsuits over it.

Many parents are frustrated with the state’s decision to interfere. Angela Perry, a concerned mother from central Florida, states, “‘Whatever happened to parental rights? You are already selecting books my child can read at school. That is fine to a certain extent. But now you are also moving into their private life as well. It’s becoming intrusive.’” [8] The right for parents to control the upbringing of their children is a constitutional liberty per Washington v.

Glucksberg (1997). However, states are granted police powers, or general law making abilities to protect the health and safety of its people by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. It will be up to the courts to continue deciding whether the state’s interests breach the parental liberties that accompany raising a child.

Desantis stated that he is already working with state officials to create a “different, superior” plan. [9] On X, he announced that “[p]rotecting children from harms associated with social media is important, as is supporting parents’ rights. I anticipate the new bill will recognize these priorities and will be signed into law soon.” [10] State decisions like this represent a larger movement that rejects the idea of unfiltered social media in order to protect vulnerable groups like children, but it must be delicately balanced against the protection of individual liberties that all Americans are guaranteed.

Notes:

1. Crowley, Kinsey, Dan Rorabaugh, C.A. Bridges, and Douglas Soule. “Florida Social Media Ban Passes Legislature, Headed to DeSantis’ Desk: What to Know.” USA Today, February 23, 2024. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/02/23/forida-social-media-ban/72712831007/.

2. CS/HB1: Online Protection for Minor, Sess. of 2024

3. Farrington, Brendan. “Florida Lawmakers Pass Ban on Social Media for Kids under 16 despite Constitutional Concerns.” AP News, February 22, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/social-media-forida-government-2a11f9a4e9256eae 341a3d54c439c5af.

4. Singer, Natasha. “Florida Passes Sweeping Bill to Keep Young People of Social Media.” The New York Times, February 23, 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/23/business/forida-social-media-youths.htm l#:~:text=The%20new%20rules%20in%20Florida,believed%20belonged%20to %20underage%20users..

5. Singer. “Florida Passes Sweeping Bill to Keep Young People of Social Media.”

6. Singer. “Florida Passes Sweeping Bill to Keep Young People of Social Media.”

7. Levine, Sam. “Florida Advances Law Banning Children under 16 from Using Social Media.” The Guardian, January 25, 2024, sec. US news. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/25/forida-social-media-teenag er-ban-bill.

8. Farrington. “Florida Lawmakers Pass Ban on Social Media for Kids under 16 despite Constitutional Concerns.”

9. Cristiano Lima-Strong, “DeSantis Vetoes Florida Bill Banning Social Media for Most Kids,” Washington Post, March 1, 2024, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/03/01/florida-social-media-ban-desantis-veto/.

10. Lima-Strong. “DeSantis Vetoes Florida Bill Banning Social Media for Most Kids.”

Bibliography:

Borter, Gabriella. “Florida Lawmakers Pass Bill to Ban Social Media for Anyone under 16.” Reuters, February 23, 2024. https://www.reuters.com/legal/florida-lawmakers-pass-bill-ban-social-media-children-under-16-2024-02-23/.

Crowley, Kinsey, Dan Rorabaugh, C.A. Bridges, and Douglas Soule. “Florida Social Media Ban Passes Legislature, Headed to DeSantis’ Desk: What to Know.” USA Today, February 23, 2024.https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/02/23/florida-social-media-ban/72712831007/. CS/HB1: Online Protection for Minor, Sess. of 2024

Farrington, Brendan. “Florida Lawmakers Pass Ban on Social Media for Kids under 16 despite Constitutional Concerns.” AP News, February 22, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/social-media-florida-government-2a11f9a4e9256eae341a3d54 c439c5af.

Levine, Sam. “Florida Advances Law Banning Children under 16 from Using Social Media.” The Guardian, January 25, 2024, sec. US news. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/25/florida-social-media-teenager-ban-bill

Lima-Strong, Cristiano. “DeSantis Vetoes Florida Bill Banning Social Media for Most Kids.” Washington Post, March 1, 2024. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/03/01/florida-social-media-ban-desantis-veto/.

Singer, Natasha. “Florida Passes Sweeping Bill to Keep Young People off Social Media.” The New York Times, February 23, 2024.https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/23/business/florida-social-media-youths.html#:~:text=The%20new%20rules%20in%20Florida,believed%20belonged%20to%20underage%20users..