In Texas, lawmakers claim that social media platforms like Meta (FB  ), Twitter (TWTR  ), and Youtube (GOOGL  ) are "censoring" conservative voices, and they tried to do something about it. H.B. 20, A law that would have allowed Texas to sue platforms for removing certain content was recently blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trade groups representing major tech companies argued that the law would have violated their First Amendment rights and hampered efforts to moderate online content.

The Court decided to grant the emergency stay on the law, with five justices concurring and four dissenting. However, that ratio doesn't necessarily reflect the justices' views on the claims put forth by the tech companies. Instead, the decision reflects the fact that five of the justices disagreed with a recent appeals court ruling that would have allowed the law to take effect. The decision didn't mention the claims about the First Amendment.

Unlike the concurring decision, the dissenting opinion did speak in-depth about the First Amendment and constitutional claims. Historically, it's been generally accepted that the government can't tell tech companies how to moderate their platforms, but the dissenting opinion brings that into question.

"It is not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies." Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his dissent.

It's also worth noting that liberal Justice Elena Kagan stated that she would not approve the tech companies' request for a stay, but didn't say whether she agreed or disagreed with their claims about constitutionality. Her dissent is in opposition to the court's "shadow docket", the increasingly common practice of making hasty decisions on important issues without taking time for a full argument or written decision.

With the current conservative majority on the Supreme Court, it's possible that a full review could lead to a different result. The Supreme Court's decision is also expected to be appealed, and the court may still eventually do a full review of the law.

Texas is far from the first state to claim that big tech is silencing conservatives. Just a week prior to the Supreme Court decision, an anti-censorship law in Florida was blocked by a federal appeals court.

"Neither law nor logic recognizes government authority to strip an entity of its First Amendment rights merely by labeling it a common carrier," the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in its ruling against the Florida law.

Moving forward, it's likely that other states will continue to try to enforce their own versions of H.B. 20.

H.B. 20 itself would effectively stop big platforms from moderating their content: platforms with more than 50 million users could be sued for removing posts because of the views expressed, even if the post violates terms of service.