Supreme Court allows Texas app store age checks during appeal

The Supreme Court declined to block Texas from enforcing its app store age-verification law, leaving Apple, Google and other app store operators subject to new rules while litigation continues. The order is a live regulatory risk for mobile distribution: Texas can require age checks, parental consent and app-related ratings even as challengers argue the law violates the First Amendment.

The court issued two short orders denying requests to lift a 5th Circuit stay. The applications had been brought by the Computer & Communications Industry Association, a trade group representing large technology companies, and Students Engaged in Advancing Texas, a student advocacy group.

The Texas App Store Accountability Act requires app stores to determine users’ ages through a “commercially reasonable method of verification” and apply restrictions to users under 18. Apple and Google announced plans last year to comply with the law, while warning that the regime would weaken user privacy. The companies did not disclose new compliance costs in connection with the Supreme Court action.

The lower courts split over speech rules

US District Judge Robert Pitman blocked the law in December 2025, before its planned January 1, 2026 effective date. Pitman found that the challengers were likely to succeed on a First Amendment claim and applied strict scrutiny, citing the law’s treatment of different categories of apps and its stated aim of shielding minors from speech Texas considers harmful or objectionable.

The 5th Circuit reversed the practical effect of that order on June 4 by staying the injunction. A three-judge panel said Texas had made a strong showing that Pitman’s ruling contained reversible errors and that the district court likely should not have applied strict scrutiny to much, if not all, of the law.

The appeals court characterized the relevant app store activity as speech proposing a commercial transaction, which is typically reviewed under intermediate scrutiny. The panel also said the law likely advances Texas’ interests in children’s data, safety and privacy, and that the district court had gone too far by issuing an injunction that blocked enforcement against everyone rather than limiting relief to the plaintiffs and their members.

Oral argument at the 5th Circuit is scheduled for August 4. The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene at this stage does not decide the merits, and the court could still review the law after the appeals process runs further.

Texas frames the law as child protection

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said after the 5th Circuit ruling that the state has “the right” and “the duty” to protect children online, and that parents should know what children are downloading and be able to block access to harmful or inappropriate content.

The challengers frame the law as a broad restriction on access to lawful content. CCIA CEO Matt Schruers said the group will use the expedited 5th Circuit hearing to argue that the law violates the First Amendment. He said people should not have to provide personal data to use the internet, comparing the requirement to showing government identification to enter a bookstore.

Students Engaged in Advancing Texas told the Supreme Court that the law would treat a broad set of internet distribution, including books, newspapers, magazines, movies and music, as commercial speech that government could more easily restrict. The group argued that the act reaches news and educational materials and conflicts with parents’ ability to supervise children’s internet use on their own terms.

Texas told the Supreme Court its law is comparable to age-based limits on driver’s licenses. The state argued it can regulate children’s downloads of software as a product category even if some minors want to use apps for expressive activity.

The order follows the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision upholding a separate Texas age-verification law for pornographic websites. The app store case is broader for the technology sector because it targets mobile distribution infrastructure rather than a specific category of adult content.

This story draws on original reporting from Ars Technica.