Federal Judge Blocks Nebraska's Social Media Age-Verification Law on First Amendment Grounds

Federal Judge Blocks Nebraska's Social Media Age-Verification Law on First Amendment Grounds

A federal judge blocked the core of Nebraska's Parental Rights in Social Media Act on June 27, 2026, days before it was set to take effect. In NetChoice v. Hilgers, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska granted a preliminary injunction halting the law's age-verification and parental-consent mandates, finding they likely burden protected First Amendment activity.

Information last verified on July 6, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Status: Preliminary injunction granted in part and denied in part on June 27, 2026 (No. 4:26-cv-03149, D. Neb.). This is an interlocutory order; the case has not been finally decided, and the state has not announced whether it will appeal.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses a federal preliminary injunction against a Nebraska statute, decided under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It does not resolve the constitutionality of every state age-verification law, which differ in text and are litigated separately. For related coverage, see our explainer on children's online privacy laws by state and the Sixth Circuit ruling on Ohio's parental-consent social media law.

What Happened

On June 27, 2026, Senior U.S. District Judge John M. Gerrard granted a preliminary injunction in part in NetChoice, LLC v. Hilgers, No. 4:26-cv-03149 (D. Neb.), blocking key provisions of Nebraska's Parental Rights in Social Media Act, LB 383, before their July 1, 2026 effective date. NetChoice, a technology-industry trade association whose members include major social-media platforms, sued Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers to stop the law. The court held a hearing on the preliminary-injunction motion on June 16, 2026 and issued its order roughly ten days later.

LB 383 required social-media companies to verify a user's age before an account is created and required minors to secure express parental consent before creating or maintaining an account. It also required platforms to provide parents with tools to monitor a minor's activity. Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen signed the measure on May 20, 2025, with a July 1, 2026 effective date.

The court enjoined the age-verification and parental-consent requirements. According to the order as reported in the record, the court found that "by requiring age verification and parental consent to create an account, LB 383 has a direct impact on several protected First Amendment activities and materials." The court concluded the state was unlikely to show the requirements were adequately tailored to the harms it identified, which it tied to adolescent mental health and platform design.

Not every provision fell. The court left in place the portion of LB 383 that requires platforms to give parents a dashboard to access and monitor a minor's posts, interactions, and messages. That component was allowed to take effect while the litigation proceeds.

As of the ruling, Nebraska had not said whether it would appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Because a preliminary injunction is an interlocutory order, the district court has not entered a final judgment, and the merits remain to be decided.

What the Law Actually Says

A preliminary injunction is not a final decision. It is an early-stage order that pauses a law while a case proceeds, and a court grants one only if the challenger shows, among other things, a likelihood of success on the merits and a likelihood of irreparable harm. Here, the court concluded NetChoice was likely to succeed on its First Amendment claim, which is why the age-verification and consent provisions were paused rather than struck down for good.

The First Amendment protects not only speech itself but access to speech. Courts analyzing social-media age-verification laws have treated the act of creating an account, and the speech and information that account enables, as protected expression. When a state conditions that access on identity or age verification and parental permission, courts have often applied heightened scrutiny, asking whether the law is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest. The Nebraska court's tailoring analysis follows that framework.

This ruling fits a broader line of litigation that NetChoice has pursued across the country. In Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707 (2024), the Supreme Court addressed First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws regulating platform content moderation and emphasized that platforms exercise protected editorial judgment. In NetChoice v. Griffin, a federal court in Arkansas permanently enjoined that state's Social Media Safety Act, Act 689, on March 31, 2025, holding that its age-verification and parental-consent scheme was a content-based restriction not sufficiently tied to the harms the state identified. Similar challenges have targeted laws in Ohio, California, and other states.

The counterpoint matters too. In Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, 606 U.S. ___ (2025), the Supreme Court upheld a Texas law requiring age verification to access websites offering sexual material deemed obscene for minors, applying intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny. That decision shows age-verification law is not uniform: a statute aimed at material that is obscene as to minors can be analyzed under a more forgiving standard than a general social-media account mandate that sweeps in protected speech for all users. The Nebraska court treated LB 383 as the latter kind of law.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

Nebraska is one more data point in a consistent trend. State legislatures across the political spectrum have passed laws requiring age checks and parental consent for minors to use social media, and federal courts have repeatedly paused or blocked the account-creation mandates when NetChoice challenges them. The recurring theme is tailoring. Courts have not said states are powerless to protect minors online; they have said that conditioning access to lawful speech on identity verification for everyone is a blunt instrument that burdens adults and minors alike.

The split with the adult-content context is the part worth watching. After Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, age verification for sexual-material sites can survive under intermediate scrutiny, while general social-media age mandates keep drawing strict scrutiny and injunctions. That gap gives legislatures a signal about which designs are more likely to hold up, though it does not tell any particular state that a narrower law would necessarily survive.

For now, the Nebraska order pauses two of the law's central requirements without ending the case. The dashboard-access provision that survived shows courts are willing to separate monitoring tools from access restrictions. Whether the injunction holds depends on further proceedings and any appeal, and this analysis does not predict how the case will ultimately be decided.

What Happens Next

The preliminary injunction keeps the age-verification and parental-consent provisions on hold while the litigation continues in the District of Nebraska. The parties can proceed toward a decision on the merits, and the state may seek review of the injunction in the Eighth Circuit. A final judgment, or an appellate ruling, would be the event that converts this developing matter into settled law. Until then, the enjoined provisions are not enforceable, and the surviving parental-monitoring provision remains in effect.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers a federal preliminary injunction and reflects sources verified on July 6, 2026. Laws change and this story is developing; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.

Sources

• NetChoice, LLC v. Hilgers, No. 4:26-cv-03149 (D. Neb.), docket
• Nebraska Legislature, LB 383 (Parental Rights in Social Media Act), bill page
• Nebraska Legislature, LB 383 slip law text (PDF)
• Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707 (2024)
• Congressional Research Service, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton and age-verification laws (LSB11354)
• First Amendment, U.S. Constitution

Related articles

• Children's online privacy laws by state
• Sixth Circuit revives Ohio's parental-consent social media law
• Illinois passes a social media age-assurance bill (HB 5511)
• Social media harm lawsuits: MDL 3047 and status
• COPPA compliance guide: children's online privacy protection

---

Last updated: 2026-07-06. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-07-06.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the court strike down Nebraska's social media law?

No. On June 27, 2026, the court granted a preliminary injunction in part, which pauses the age-verification and parental-consent provisions of LB 383 while the case continues. It is not a final judgment, and the law was not permanently struck down.

Which parts of LB 383 are blocked?

The court enjoined the requirement that platforms verify a user's age before an account is created and the requirement that minors obtain express parental consent to create or keep an account. It left in place the provision giving parents a dashboard to monitor a minor's activity.

Why did the court block the age-verification requirement?

The court found the age-verification and parental-consent mandates have a direct impact on protected First Amendment activity of users and platforms, and that Nebraska was unlikely to show the provisions were adequately tailored to the harms it identified.

Does this ruling apply to other states' age-verification laws?

Not directly. The injunction addresses Nebraska's LB 383 only. Other state laws differ in wording and are litigated separately, though courts have enjoined several similar social-media age-verification and parental-consent laws on First Amendment grounds.

Didn't the Supreme Court uphold an age-verification law in 2025?

Yes, but in a different context. In Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2025), the Court upheld age verification for websites offering sexual material obscene for minors, applying intermediate scrutiny. Courts have treated general social-media account mandates differently and applied stricter review.

Can Nebraska appeal?

A preliminary injunction can generally be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. As of the ruling, the state had not announced whether it would appeal, and the underlying case remains pending in the district court.