The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to block Texas from enforcing a state law that requires app stores to verify users’ ages and obtain parental consent for minors seeking to download apps or make in-app purchases on mobile phones. Justice Samuel Alito, in a pair of one-sentence orders, denied petitions by plaintiffs who claim that the Texas App Store Accountability Act violates users’ constitutional rights to free speech.
The decision marks a significant victory for Texas and for state efforts to regulate children’s online activity. The Supreme Court’s move allows the law to remain in effect while the underlying litigation continues. The case involved emergency applications filed by the Computer & Communications Industry Association, whose members include Apple and Google, and Students Engaged in Advancing Texas, a coalition of students seeking to block the law.
The Texas App Store Accountability Act, enacted in 2025, requires app stores and developers to verify the ages of mobile device users. Under the law, accounts belonging to people under age 18 must be linked to the account of a parent or guardian, who must receive notice of an app’s age rating and provide approval before a minor can download it or make any in-app purchases. The law was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026.
The legal battle has been contentious from the start. In December, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman sided with the challengers, finding that the law likely violates the First Amendment. He compared the requirement to a hypothetical regulation that “would require every bookstore to verify the age of every customer at the door and, for minors, require parental consent before the child or teen could enter and again when they try to purchase a book.” Pitman blocked the law’s enforcement before it could take effect.
However, the legal landscape shifted in early June when a three-judge panel from the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put Pitman’s order on hold, allowing the law to take effect. The Fifth Circuit found that Texas likely had a substantial, if not compelling, interest in protecting children. The court wrote that “parents need to have the necessary information to make informed choices affecting their children’s upbringing.” The appeals court ruled that the law regulates commercial transactions rather than pure speech, subjecting it to a less demanding constitutional standard than the strict scrutiny Pitman had applied.
Following the Fifth Circuit’s decision, the Computer & Communications Industry Association and Students Engaged in Advancing Texas filed emergency petitions with the Supreme Court, asking it to halt enforcement of the law pending further litigation. The industry group argued that the law unconstitutionally forces app stores to police access to vast amounts of online speech. In court filings, the association noted that “no state has ever required its citizens to prove their age before reading a newspaper, entering a bookstore, or even accessing the internet,” adding that the Texas law “does exactly that — for every mobile app on every mobile phone.”
Supporters of the law argued it was necessary to protect children. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office contended that the law protects children from “dangerous modern products,” comparing it to longstanding state regulations restricting minors’ access to alcohol and tobacco. The state also received support from 27 other state attorneys general who filed briefs defending the law.
This case represents another flashpoint in an escalating conflict between state efforts to regulate children’s online access and federal courts’ protection of free speech rights. Last year, the Supreme Court upheld a different Texas law requiring age verification for pornographic websites, with the court’s six conservative justices voting in the majority and three liberal justices dissenting. That case, in which the court rejected an adult entertainment industry challenge, appeared to give the conservative majority some openness to age verification requirements.
However, challengers argued that the app store law is distinctly broader. Rather than targeting obscene or sexually explicit content, it applies to every mobile application available, including news apps, educational platforms, fitness applications, and many others that contain speech protected by the First Amendment. Students Engaged in Advancing Texas argued that the law allows teenagers to access the College Board app without parental approval but requires permission for apps like Fortnite, YouTube, and Spotify.
The Supreme Court provided no explanation for its decision to deny the emergency petitions. No justice noted any dissent from the orders, and the court maintained its typical practice of not explaining emergency docket decisions. By declining to block the law, the Supreme Court effectively allowed the lower appeals court’s decision to stand, leaving the law in effect as litigation continues over its constitutionality.
The ruling signals that the current Supreme Court majority appears willing to tolerate aggressive state efforts to regulate children’s access to digital content, at least in the context of emergency motions. The case will continue through the courts, where the ultimate question of whether the law violates the First Amendment remains unresolved. For now, Texas parents and app store operators must comply with the new requirements while the legal dispute proceeds.