The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit issued the ruling on October 14 in a lawsuit brought by the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice against Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier.

The panel concluded that the law, known as House Bill 3, likely survives the applicable constitutional test in the challengers’ as-applied First Amendment claim. It also rejected their facial challenge at this stage because they had not demonstrated that the law’s unconstitutional applications substantially outweighed its valid ones.

The decision removes the preliminary injunction that had prevented Florida from enforcing the challenged provisions. However, it does not end the litigation or resolve every possible constitutional challenge to restrictions on children’s social-media use.

Court reverses injunction blocking enforcement

Florida enacted HB 3 in 2024, with the law taking effect on January 1, 2025. The industry groups challenged it before it took effect, arguing that its restrictions interfere with the First Amendment rights of platforms and users.

In June 2025, a federal district court in the Northern District of Florida concluded that the challengers were likely to succeed on their constitutional claims and issued a preliminary injunction.

The state appealed. The 11th Circuit had already stayed that injunction while it considered the case, allowing enforcement to proceed during the appeal.

In its October 14 opinion, the appeals court affirmed the district court’s conclusions that the industry groups had standing to bring the case and that the federal court did not need to abstain because of a related state proceeding. But it reversed the preliminary injunction on the as-applied claim and vacated it on the facial challenge.

The court then returned the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The practical effect is that Florida can enforce the challenged provisions while the litigation continues, unless another court order or later ruling changes that position. The ruling should not be described as a final judgment resolving every legal issue raised by the challengers.

What Florida’s law requires

HB 3 does not apply to every website or online service. The statute defines a covered social-media platform through several criteria.

A service must allow users to upload content or view content or activity from other users. At least 10% of its daily active users under 16 must spend an average of two hours or more per day on the service on days they use it. The platform must also use algorithms that analyze user data to select content and have at least one of five specified features.

Those features are infinite scrolling, push notifications, personal interactive metrics such as likes and shares, autoplay video, and live-streaming.

The statute excludes services whose exclusive function is email or direct messaging in which content is shared only between the sender and specifically identified recipients.

For platforms that meet the definition, the age rules differ by group. Children younger than 14 may not create accounts. Users aged 14 or 15 may create accounts only with parental or guardian consent.

Covered platforms must also terminate accounts held by children who fall within the prohibited age groups, subject to the law’s procedures for disputing an account termination. The statute requires deletion of personal information associated with terminated accounts, unless another legal requirement calls for retention.

Although the law does not prescribe one universal age-verification method in the cited section, platforms must determine which users fall under its age restrictions and whether the required parental consent exists.

Law carries financial penalties for violations

Florida’s statute authorizes the state Department of Legal Affairs to pursue enforcement actions against platforms for knowing or reckless violations.

The law permits civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation, along with reasonable attorney fees and court costs. It also allows punitive damages when a platform’s noncompliance involves a consistent pattern of knowing or reckless conduct.

The statute separately permits a minor account holder to bring a civil claim for a knowing or reckless violation. Such a claim may result in damages of up to $10,000, along with court costs and reasonable attorney fees as ordered by the court.

These provisions make the appellate ruling consequential for covered services. However, the ruling itself does not establish that any particular platform has violated the law or determine liability in a separate enforcement action.

First Amendment dispute remains central

NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association argued that HB 3 restricts lawful online expression. They contend that social-media platforms host protected speech and that restricting access to them can limit the ability of minors to receive information and participate in public discussion.

NetChoice said it was disappointed with the ruling and was evaluating its legal options. Paul Taske, director of the organization’s Litigation Center, said the law imposes digital identification requirements as a condition for accessing lawful online speech.

Florida defended the law as a measure to protect children from harmful patterns of social-media use. The state argued that features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay and push notifications can encourage compulsive use and that minors are particularly vulnerable to the effects.

The appeals court treated the law as a content-neutral regulation affecting speech and applied intermediate scrutiny to the as-applied claim. Under that standard, the court concluded that the law likely survives constitutional review.

That conclusion does not mean the court independently established that social media causes addiction in every user. Its task was to assess the law under the constitutional standard and the evidence presented in the litigation.

Facial challenge fails under the court’s analysis

The court also considered the challengers’ facial challenge, which sought to invalidate the law more broadly rather than only in particular applications.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Moody v. NetChoice, the 11th Circuit said the challengers had not adequately examined the full range of services and circumstances covered by the statute. The court found that they had not shown that unconstitutional applications substantially outweighed constitutional ones.

That ruling reflects the burden the court applied to a facial challenge. It does not establish that every possible application of HB 3 is constitutional, nor does it eliminate the possibility of further legal disputes over how the statute applies to particular services or circumstances.

The court’s separate treatment of the facial and as-applied claims is important to understanding the decision. The preliminary injunction was reversed for the as-applied claim and vacated for the facial challenge, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Further litigation could change the legal position

NetChoice said it was evaluating its options following the October 14 ruling. The organization did not, in the statement reviewed for this report, confirm that it had filed a petition for rehearing or sought Supreme Court review.

The next steps depend on any further filings, court orders and proceedings in the district court. A new stay or injunction could affect enforcement, so the procedural status should be checked again before publication.

For now, Florida has regained the ability to enforce HB 3 under the appellate court’s ruling. The legal dispute over minors’ access to social media, parental consent and online expression remains unresolved in its entirety.

Reporting Credit: U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit for its October 14, 2026, opinion in Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice v. Attorney General, State of Florida; the Florida Legislature for the text of Florida Statutes § 501.1736; and NetChoice for its public response to the ruling.

The post Florida Can Enforce Child Social Media Restrictions After Appeals Court Ruling appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The action followed a series of legal setbacks for the Kennedy Center, which had sought additional time to comply with a federal court ruling. According to court filings submitted shortly after midnight, the center requested an extension until noon Saturday after thunderstorms in the Washington area delayed work on the building.

In the filing, the institution told the court that removal efforts were already underway and expected to be completed during the early morning hours.

By dawn, workers had begun dismantling letters bearing Trump’s name from the facade. Tarps were placed around scaffolding erected on the building, limiting public visibility of the work. Crews left the site around 3:30 a.m., though coverings remained in place, making it unclear whether all references had been fully removed.

Court Order Drives Compliance Effort

The removal stems from a ruling by U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, who determined that changes to the Kennedy Center’s official name could only be authorized by Congress. The decision required the institution to remove references to Trump that had been added after he assumed a leadership role at the venue earlier this year.

The Kennedy Center attempted to halt enforcement of the ruling through emergency appeals, but those efforts were unsuccessful. On Friday afternoon, a judge denied a request to pause the compliance deadline, and a subsequent appeal was rejected later the same day.

The legal dispute has become a prominent test of the limits of executive influence over federally chartered cultural institutions.

Public Reaction Outside the Venue

Dozens of people gathered Friday outside the Kennedy Center as workers prepared for the removal. Some attendees took photographs and applauded developments throughout the day, while others chanted in support of eliminating Trump’s name from the building.

Among those present was Rep. Joyce Beatty of Ohio, an ex-officio member of the Kennedy Center board who filed suit seeking the removal of Trump’s name from the institution.

The demonstrations underscored the political and symbolic significance the controversy has acquired since Trump returned to office.

Trump’s Expanded Influence at the Kennedy Center

Although Trump paid limited attention to the Kennedy Center during his first term, his administration moved quickly to reshape the institution after his return to the White House.

Within weeks of beginning a second term, Trump removed the center’s previous leadership and appointed a new board of trustees. The board subsequently selected him as chairman, and his name was soon added to the venue.

The legal challenge argued that those changes conflicted with congressional authority governing the institution’s name and structure.

Judge Cooper’s ruling concluded that such alterations exceeded executive authority and required legislative approval.

Renovation Dispute Continues

The court decision also addressed a separate issue involving the future of the Kennedy Center itself.

Cooper blocked plans to close the venue for a major renovation project scheduled to begin in July and continue for approximately two years. The Kennedy Center has argued that extensive repairs are necessary and has warned about deteriorating infrastructure throughout the facility.

In court filings submitted Friday, the institution contended that the renovation delay could affect efforts to address significant structural concerns, including deteriorating beams and parking garage ceilings.

The renovation dispute remains unresolved and could continue through additional legal proceedings.

Changes Already Underway

Even as legal challenges continued, the Kennedy Center had already begun implementing aspects of the court’s ruling.

An internal memorandum dated June 4 instructed employees that official communications, including email signatures, letterhead and other documents, should use either “The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts” or simply “Kennedy Center.”

The institution’s website has also removed references to Trump’s name. Promotional communications for upcoming events, including ticket offers related to the June 28 Mark Twain Award for American Humor ceremony, likewise omitted references to Trump.

The latest developments mark another chapter in a high-profile legal battle that has focused on the balance of authority between federal institutions, the executive branch and Congress over one of the nation’s most recognizable cultural landmarks.

The post Workers Begin Removing Trump’s Name From Kennedy Center Following Court Deadline appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

As the Supreme Court prepared to hear arguments on whether to allow President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship to take effect, he made a striking claim on Truth Social: that the United States is the only country in the world that grants citizenship simply by being born on its soil.

This claim is false.

Back on January 20, the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order aimed at denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are here illegally or only temporarily. However, lower courts quickly blocked this order nationwide, and the administration is now appealing these decisions, challenging the authority of judges to issue such broad injunctions. Importantly, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether the executive order itself is constitutional.

Let’s break down the facts.

Trump’s Claim vs. Reality

On Truth Social, Trump said:
“The United States of America is the only Country in the World that does this, for what reason, nobody knows.”

But the truth is quite different.

According to the CIA World Factbook and the Library of Congress, about 30 countries worldwide offer unconditional birthright citizenship, including Canada, Mexico, and many nations in Africa and Asia. The U.S. is far from unique in this regard.

“The statement is pretty obviously wrong,” says Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and expert on constitutional law and migration rights. “Many countries have birthright citizenship, though in some of them the rules differ from those in the U.S.”

What Is Birthright Citizenship?

Birthright citizenship is based on the principle of jus soli — Latin for “right of the soil.” It means that anyone born within a country’s borders automatically gains citizenship, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

This contrasts with jus sanguinis, or “right of blood,” where citizenship depends on the nationality of one’s parents or ancestors.

In the U.S., birthright citizenship is nearly unconditional. Children born on American soil are citizens, except for two narrow exceptions: children of foreign diplomats and children of enemy soldiers occupying the country during wartime. Historically, Native Americans were excluded until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

A Historical Foundation

Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution after the Civil War to guarantee citizenship for formerly enslaved people. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

This Citizenship Clause overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which held that Black people — enslaved or free — could not be citizens. It was a monumental shift in American history, affirming citizenship rights regardless of race or parentage (with the limited exceptions noted).

Trump’s Executive Order Faces Legal Hurdles

Trump’s executive order attempts to restrict birthright citizenship in a way that conflicts with longstanding Supreme Court precedent, notably a decision from 1898 that confirmed the Citizenship Clause grants citizenship to all born on U.S. soil except in very specific, rare cases.

Currently, the Supreme Court is considering this case alongside other immigration-related appeals brought by the Trump administration.

What This Means

The U.S. is not unique in offering birthright citizenship — many countries around the world have similar policies. The ongoing legal battle will determine whether Trump’s effort to limit this constitutional right can move forward, but the claim that the U.S. stands alone on this issue is simply wrong.

As the debate unfolds, understanding the history and facts behind birthright citizenship helps cut through the political rhetoric and misinformation.

Source: AP News – FACT FOCUS: Trump claims the US is the only country with birthright citizenship. It’s not

The post Trump’s Claim That Only the U.S. Has Birthright Citizenship Is False appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.