On Tuesday, the same day Texas was briefly allowed to enforce a new law giving police officers the power to arrest unauthorized migrants, Iowa lawmakers passed a law making it a crime to enter their state after being deported or denied entry into the United States. .

At least seven states, all controlled by Republicans, hope to follow suit or have already considered bills that have not passed.

The flood of laws and proposals aimed at cracking down on undocumented immigrants entering the country is part of the extraordinary mix of immigration, lawsuits and politics that is creating legal gridlock in the courts and confusion at the border.

However, the fate of all these bills will most likely depend on the outcome of the Texas case, according to legal analysts and groups involved in migration issues. If Texas’ law is upheld, observers expect more bills from Republican states modeled on what Texas did.

Kansas and Oklahoma are among the states that have introduced legislation this year regarding illegal entry into the United States, following the law in Texas.

Louisiana became the latest on Monday. And Missouri has two bills, including An sponsored by State Senator Bill Eigel, who is one of the leading candidates for governor this year.

Mr. Eigel, who represents a St. Louis suburb, described the surge at the border as an “invasion” and blamed “the failure of our federal government under President Joe Biden to deal with it” during a committee hearing last week to go’.

It’s too early to tell whether these bills will progress as far as Iowa’s. Bills in West Virginia and Mississippi have already failed. And a similar bill passed by Arizona’s Republican-controlled Legislature was vetoed by Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat.

But none of the other states eyeing immigration laws like Texas’s have Democratic governors.

Still, supporters and opponents of the Texas law said they wouldn’t be surprised if lawmakers in other states try to introduce similar measures as most legislative sessions begin to wind down in the coming months.

“The bigger picture is that given the scope of illegal immigration and the impact it has on states and local communities, we are likely to see more efforts on the part of these jurisdictions to try to discourage people from settling there illegally,” said Ira Mehlman, spokesperson for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which supports reducing both legal and undocumented immigration.

Spencer Amdur, a senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said immigrant advocates are considering legal challenges to the Iowa legislation, which Gov. Kim Reynolds has pledged to sign.

Among other objections, Mr. Amdur argued that the regulation of entry and removal was exclusively federal. He also said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot unilaterally enforce immigration rules.

“We think the Iowa law is illegal for the same reasons we think the Texas law is illegal,” he said.

Mr Amdur noted that while most bills to date contain similar wording, Oklahoma was something elsepartly because of one phrase: ‘unlawfully present’.

Under Oklahoma’s proposal, anyone who was arrested and charged with a crime and then determined to be “unlawfully present” in the country would be guilty of a felony punishable by a minimum of 10 years in prison.

Jacob Hamburger, a visiting law professor at Cornell, said the proposed laws risk leading to racial profiling. He also said that if the courts uphold Texas law — basically that “Texas can have its own deportation policy” — states led by Democratic governors who have tried to strengthen immigrant protections could be emboldened to push for more lenient labor licensing and other laws. policy.

But for now, he said, “aspects of Texas’ overall strategy — such as this public campaign to transport migrants to cities — may have weakened Democrats’ commitment to immigrants.”

The sweeping security laws deal another blow to Hong Kong

Hong-Kong has passed national security laws at the behest of Beijing. The legislation, known as the Article 23 laws, will thwart decades of public resistance. Critics said the move would deal a lasting blow to the partial autonomy China had promised the city.

The first attempts to pass such legislation, in 2003, caused massive protests. Top officials resigned and city leaders were reluctant to raise the issue again in subsequent years, fearing public backlash. A previous national security law imposed by Beijing in 2020 effectively suppressed street protests. This time the streets of Hong Kong were quiet.

I spoke to Tiffany May, who covers Hong Kong for The Times.

Amelia: How will these laws impact Hong Kong?

Tiffany: Whether it makes things better or worse depends on who you ask.

Hong Kong has been an Asian financial center for decades as it was seen as a gateway to business opportunities on the mainland, with an independent judiciary as its backbone. It also enjoyed freedoms unthinkable in the rest of the country.

But in recent years the city has been watching China’s crackdown more closely. The new national security law, known as Article 23 legislation, targets ambiguous crimes such as “external interference” and “theft of state secrets.”

Critics say this could cool any criticism of China entail new risks for international business operationseroding the very freedoms that had made the city an international business center.

How is this law different from the national security law passed in 2020?

The new safety laws increase the reach of the violations that endanger national security. They also introduce important changes to due process. In some cases, police can now seek permission from magistrates to prevent suspects from consulting lawyers of their choice if this is considered a threat to national security.

Analysts said this could have a chilling effect on entrepreneurs, civil servants, lawyers, diplomats, journalists and academics. The punishment for political crimes such as treason and rebellion includes life imprisonment.

Why was this pushed by the government?

China is at a point where it feels constantly under attack from the West.

The country’s top leader, Xi Jinping, sees national security legislation as necessary to protect China from what he sees as unfair trade practices, the infiltration of spies and other types of security threats. This year, Beijing emphasized that it would prioritize both economic growth and security, and in February it updated a state secrets law.

Analysts say he is taking a similar approach with Hong Kong. Chinese officials have urged Hong Kong’s leaders to pass the city’s own security laws as soon as possible. Hong Kong’s top leader John Lee said swift passage of the law would allow the government to focus on rebuilding the economy.

Japan raised interest rates after years of sub-zero borrowing

The Japanese central bank interest rates increased for the first time in seventeen years. The move comes amid a surge in inflation and rising wages, suggesting Japan’s economy can grow without such aggressive stimulus measures.

It brought borrowing costs below zero in 2016, an unorthodox attempt to boost borrowing and lending. This slight increase will raise rates a series zero to 0.1 percent, but it could have a dramatic symbolic effect, said my colleague Joe Rennison, who reports on financial markets.

“I think this is a signal that prices aren’t going to drop again anytime soon,” Joe said. He noted that the wage increases showed a change in attitudes. People think they can no longer wait out inflation, so they ask for more money.

Global context: The interest rate is lower than that of the central banks in the US and the EU. Japan’s central bank is the latest major institution to abandon its negative interest rate policy, introduced after the 2008 financial crisis.

MORE TOP NEWS

Years of drought in Afghanistan have displaced villages and left millions of children malnourished. Photographer Lynsey Addario documented the devastation. Look.

Lives lived: Paulin Houndondaji, a philosopher from Benin who helped transform African intellectual life has died. He was 81.

Conversation starters

ARTS AND IDEAS

MLB opens in Seoul

The Major League Baseball season starts today. It should be a good game: the Los Angeles Dodgers play the San Diego Padres. But the setting is the most interesting part.

The game will be played at Seoul’s Gocheok Sky Dome, where South Korea’s raucous fan culture is punctuated by fight songs, drummers and dancers. The star will do that undoubtedly Shohei Ohtanithe Japanese Dodger that many Koreans have embraced despite the intense rivalry between the two countries.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Hong Kong passed national security laws on Tuesday at Beijing’s insistence, thwarting decades of public resistance. Critics say this will deal a lasting blow to the partial autonomy the city was promised by China.

Hong Kong already had a national security law, and that’s what it was imposed directly by the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party in 2020, after months of anti-government demonstrations in the city. That law effectively silenced dissent in Hong Kong. sending opposition members to prison or in exile.

The new legislation, which was passed with extraordinary speed, gives authorities even greater powers to crack down on opposition to Beijing and the Hong Kong government, imposing penalties – including life imprisonment – for political crimes such as treason and insurrection, that are vaguely defined. It also focuses on crimes such as “external interference” and the theft of state secrets, creating potential risks for multinational companies and international groups operating in the Asian financial center.

Analysts say the legislation, which comes into effect on March 23, could have a chilling effect on a wide range of people, including entrepreneurs, civil servants, lawyers, diplomats, journalists and academics, raising questions about Hong Kong’s status as an international city.

In the eyes of Beijing, these laws are long overdue.

When Hong Kong, a former British colony, was brought under Chinese rule in 1997, the country was given a mini-constitution to protect civil liberties unknown in mainland China, such as freedom of speech, assembly and the media. But China also pushed for a provision called Article 23, which required Hong Kong to enact a package of internal security laws to replace colonial-era sedition laws.

The first attempts to pass such legislation, in 2003, cause massive protests involving hundreds of thousands of people. Top officials resigned, and in the years that followed, city leaders were reluctant to raise the matter again, fearing public backlash.

But in recent months, the Chinese Communist Party has urged the Hong Kong government to enact Article 23 laws. The city’s Beijing-backed leader, John Lee, has said the laws are needed to stamp out unrest and combat what he calls spying efforts by Western intelligence services.

There was little chance that China’s will would not be heeded; Hong Kong’s legislature has been overwhelmingly filled with pro-Beijing lawmakers since China overhauled its electoral system to exclude candidates not considered “patriots.”

The new laws focus on five types of crimes: treason, insurrection, theft of state secrets, sabotage and outside interference. They also introduce important changes to due process. In some cases, police can now seek permission from magistrates to prevent suspects from consulting lawyers of their choice if this is considered a threat to national security.

Human rights groups said that by quickly passing the law, authorities had changed course on the freedoms once promised to the city.

Amnesty International said that the overarching purpose of the laws was to “suppress all criticism of the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities and their policies, within the city and globally.” The government has criticized foreign-based human rights organizations as “anti-China” and “anti-government” organizations.

The legislation also gives the city’s leader, known as the chief executive, the power to enact new related laws, which carry penalties of up to seven years in prison, without legislative intervention. The leader would consult the Cabinet before enacting such a law; the legislative council, known as the LegCo, could later amend or reject the law.

Such a mechanism would not be new to Hong Kong, but it increases the potential for abuse given the broad scope of the new legislation, said Thomas E. Kellogg, executive director of the Center for Asian Law at Georgetown University.

“This is deeply disturbing,” Professor Kellogg wrote in an email. “The LegCo gives the CEO the power to expand the law even further, in ways that could further infringe on fundamental rights.”

The vague wording of the legislation – for example in the way it defines offenses such as the theft of state secrets – is similar to language found in security legislation in mainland China. And under the new laws, anyone who “shares information that appears to be confidential,” even if it is not classified as a state secret, could be punished if that person, in the eyes of authorities, intended to endanger national security.

Business leaders in Hong Kong say such changes could increase the costs of operating in the city by requiring companies to scrutinize documents and other information shared by employees to ensure they do not inadvertently violate the new law.

One risk is that Hong Kong’s relative business advantage over the mainland could be eroded, said Johannes Hack, chairman of the German Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong.

“Part of the unique value that Hong Kong has for Western (German) stakeholders is the openness of the city and we believe that the balance between openness and the desire for security must be properly calibrated,” he wrote in a message on WhatsApp.

Olivia Wang reporting contributed.

Under pressure from Beijing, officials in Hong Kong are rushing to pass a longstanding national security law that could impose life sentences for treason, insurrection and collusion with outside forces, and harsh punishments aimed at cracking down on dissent in Asia financial center further.

The law known as Article 23 has long been a source of public discontent in Hong Kong, a former British colony that was promised certain freedoms when the country came under Chinese rule in 1997. It is now expected to be issued with unusual speed. the coming weeks.

Chinese Communist Party officials, who have long pressured the city to pass this law, have emerged in recent days to make clear their urgency. After meeting with a senior Chinese official in charge of Hong Kong, the city’s top leader John Lee reportedly spoke cut short his visit to Beijing to return to the city, promising to bring the law into effect “as soon as possible.” Hong Kong’s legislature and Mr Lee’s office, the Executive Council, hastily convened meetings to discuss the law.

The full bill wasn’t made public for the first time until Friday, when lawmakers began reviewing it. It focuses on five crimes: treason, insurrection, sabotage, outside interference, theft of state secrets and espionage.

Mr Lee said the law is needed to close loopholes in an existing national security law imposed by Beijing in 2020 that was used to quash pro-democracy protests and jail opposition lawmakers and activists. Mr Lee has portrayed Hong Kong as a city facing increasing national security threats, including from US and British spy agencies.

Critics say the law will further stifle freedoms in the city of 7.5 million by restricting their rights to speech and protest, while also restricting the autonomy granted to Hong Kong under the “one country, two systems” formula. China is further restricted.

Legal experts say criticism of the government can now be interpreted as sedition, a crime punishable by up to seven years in prison, which can be increased to 10 years if there is collusion with an “external force.”

“This law will have far-reaching implications for human rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong,” said Thomas Kellogg, executive director of the Georgetown Center for Asian Law. “It is clear that the government continues to expand its national security tools to crack down on its political opponents.”

The government has sought to demonstrate that the legislation has been widely accepted, citing a month-long public consultation period – based on a document that described only in general terms the scope of the law – which officials said attracted mostly supportive comments yielded.

The Hong Kong Journalists Association has expressed concern about the law over possible new restrictions on press freedom.

The Hong Kong Bar Association had recommended that the law’s definition of sedition include intent to incite violence and limit the scope of the crime. However, the bill did not contain such wording.

Mr Kellogg said the speed at which the Government is bringing the law into force suggests that concerns raised during the consultation period were unlikely to have been taken seriously.

“This does indeed suggest that the Government had no real intention of seriously responding to public submissions, and were likely to implement their planned legislation from the outset,” Mr Kellogg said.

The government first tried to introduce Article 23 in 2003, but withdrew after hundreds of thousands of residents concerned it would restrict civil liberties held large protests

Olivia Wang research contributed.

In 2017, Louisiana overhauled its criminal justice system with broad bipartisan support, all in an effort to lose the distinction of having the highest incarceration rate in the country. The sentences were reduced. The possibilities for early release were expanded. Alternatives to prison were introduced.

But seven years later, the state is sending a very different message: Those days are over.

Lawmakers, at the urging of a new Republican governor, rushed through a special session last month to roll back the 2017 changes. Bills were passed to lengthen sentences for some crimes, to strictly limit access to parole, to prosecute 17-year-olds charged with any crime as adults, and to allow execution methods beyond lethal injection. This latest change is intended to allow the state to reintroduce the death penalty after more than a decade.

“I have promised the people of this state that if elected governor, I would do everything in my power to improve the safety of our communities,” Gov. Jeff Landry said as he declared victory as the session ended closed last week. “I can proudly say that we have kept that promise.”

Mr Landry, who took office in January, and his supporters argue the new tough measures are needed to tackle violence and crime. that rose in parts of the state during the pandemic. But critics argue that the new laws are variations on flawed past policies and would have the same consequences: disproportionately punishing people of color, destroying hope and pathways to rehabilitation for prisoners, and imposing a staggering price on taxpayers.

“None of these bills will do anything to increase public safety or reduce crime in our communities,” said Sarah Omojola, executive director of Vera Louisiana, a nonprofit focused on reducing incarceration and preventing of violence. “All these bills do is expand incarceration at a very high cost to Louisianans.”

While Louisiana has been particularly aggressive, other states have also dialed back their efforts to experiment with new approaches to criminal justice. Oregon lawmakers, who had sought to decriminalize hard drugs, passed legislation last week to reimpose criminal penalties for possession of certain drugs after public drug use and overdose deaths increased.

In Louisiana, Mr. Landry, a former police officer and sheriff’s deputy who served two terms as attorney general, focused his campaign for governor on tackling crime.

He was responding to public safety concerns amid a surge in violent crimes and other crimes during the coronavirus pandemic, reflecting a national trend. The number of murders increased enormously in New Orleans, reaching levels not seen in decades and being the highest in the country in 2022. Carjackings were also widespread. The city’s police force was exhausted of officers and moral.

Crime rates have remained stable over the past year. In New Orleans, homicides fell by about 25 percent in 2023 compared to the previous year, surpassing the national decline.

Yet almost immediately after taking office, Mr. Landry called for a special session in February devoted to crime, arguing that more could be done. “We will defend and strengthen our law enforcement officers and provide real justice to victims of crimes that have been overlooked for far too long,” he said at the start of the session.

The Legislature, which has Republican majorities in both chambers, has quickly introduced a flood of bills.

The measures increase the penalty for carjackings to as much as five years in prison; impose harsher penalties for distributing or marketing fentanyl in child-resistant packaging; and allowing concealed carry of a handgun without a permit. “This is a testament to our commitment to the Second Amendment and the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families without unnecessary government intrusion,” Senator Blake Miguez, the bill’s sponsor, said in a statement.

The Legislature has also passed bills that would eliminate this the possibility of early release for most prisoners convicted of a crime after August 1 and would force prisoners to serve 85 percent of their sentences before they could be released for good behavior.

Lawmakers also approved the use of electrocution and nitrogen gas in executions, and shielding information about the companies that produce and supply the lethal injection drugs. The state has not carried out an execution in fourteen years, mainly because the difficulty of obtaining those medications.

Opponents say the policy will saddle the state with the astronomical costs of housing more prisoners for longer, while providing few benefits. “The ‘lock them up and throw away the key’ approach isn’t working,” said House Democratic Leader Matthew Willard. “These new laws do nothing to prevent crime before it happens.”

But elected officials who support the measures argue the laws will create a safer environment that will boost economic growth. “Crime certainly has a price,” said Laurie Schlegel, the Republican representative who sponsored the bills for tougher penalties for carjacking and fentanyl distribution.

The session’s assertive approach illustrated how eager Louisiana Republicans were to dismantle the legislative legacy of Gov. John Bel Edwards, the two-term Democrat who preceded Mr. Landry, and adopt policies that would have thwarted Mr. Edwards. .

“I’m not surprised that we’re seeing the results that we’re seeing,” said Edward E. Chervenak, director of the University of New Orleans Survey Research Center. “Republicans can easily topple Democrats in both houses, and they have a kindred spirit in the governor’s house.”

Before Mr. Landry took office, Mr. Edwards often stymied Republicans who otherwise controlled the state government. He issued 319 vetoes as governor, and only two were overturned by lawmakers.

Mr. Edwards, the last Democratic governor in the Deep South, has irritated many in his own party with his conservative positions on abortion and gun rights. Still, he scored some victories that were championed by progressives; the overhaul of the justice system – known as the Louisiana Justice Reinvestment Act – was one of them.

Many states made similar changes. There was broad agreement at the time that a less punitive approach to low-level offenders and tackling the causes of crime, such as drug addiction, could make the criminal justice system more effective and free up resources to be used to prosecute violent offenders.

In Louisiana – long considered the “the prison capital of the world” – the law felt like a monumental achievement.

“The political stars aligned in a way that we had never seen before in Louisiana and will never see again for a while,” said Alanah Odoms, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana. “It looked like a solar eclipse.”

Supporters of the reinvestment law acknowledged that the changes would be vulnerable to attack, but they were startled by the speed with which lawmakers moved to overturn the law over the past month.

“I think what we didn’t expect is that these rollbacks would happen in such a coordinated and rapid manner,” Ms. Omojola said, “regardless of the facts and the data and the research that said they were a bad idea.”

But Mr. Landry had made it clear that his sights were set on a serious approach.

In a recent opinion essay published in Gannett’s Louisiana newspapersMr. Landry and one of the state’s Republican U.S. senators, John Kennedy, argued that the package of laws had fueled a rise in crime in 2017 and “prioritized the comfort of violent criminals over the safety of Louisiana families.”

“This special session,” they wrote, “was the first step in taking back our streets and empowering our citizens.”

Critics said they had no doubt the new legislation would have profound consequences, and would not address the deeper reasons behind crime; They believe this would make communities safer.

“It’s not about being ‘tough on crime,’” Ms. Omojola said. “It’s about taking safety seriously.”

Republican lawmakers in Georgia are pushing for stricter state laws governing the detention of undocumented immigrants after a killing on a college campus sent shockwaves through the state.

Last Thursday, the body of Laken Riley, a 22-year-old woman, was found in a wooded area on the campus of the University of Georgia in Athens. Authorities say the man accused of the killing is Jose Antonio Ibarra, 26, a migrant from Venezuela who crossed the southern border in September 2022.

Officials said Mr. Ibarra and Ms. Riley did not know each other before the encounter that ended in Ms. Riley’s death.

Following an outpouring of grief in Athens, Georgia’s immigration policies have come under renewed scrutiny, with Republican lawmakers seeking to exert more state power over local law enforcement agencies. Athens-Clarke County Mayor Kelly Girtz has drawn criticism from conservatives for his welcoming attitude toward migrants, and a bill in the state House that would tighten Georgia’s existing immigration laws has gained new momentum.

After crossing the border, Mr. Ibarra was arrested by the Border Patrol before being released with temporary permission to remain in the country. Since then he has had several run-ins with the police. Last August, he was briefly arrested in New York City for riding a scooter without a license and with a child not wearing a helmet, an official there said. Mr. Ibarra was also arrested in Georgia in October, Athens-Clarke County police said, in connection with a shoplifting case.

Under current state law, law enforcement officers are encouraged to notify immigration authorities when detaining someone who is not a legal resident of the United States.

The new bill aims to make this notification a requirement and ensure that law enforcement officials comply with requests from immigration authorities to detain people. J. Terry Norris, executive director of the Georgia Sheriffs’ Association, said the bill was “an expansion of existing law” but “has more teeth.”

To enforce the change, the bill says, the state would withhold funding or punish officials who don’t follow the rules. On Tuesday, lawmakers advanced the measure out of a committee in the House of Representatives.

Houston Gaines, a state representative who supports the bill and whose district includes parts of Athens, said the measure was intended “to ensure that local governments fully comply with immigration law, with severe penalties if they do not.”

If passed, the bill would move Georgia one step closer to becoming one of the strictest states on immigration enforcement. such as Texas and Florida, according to Lena Graber, a senior staff attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Even in states without these laws, local officials often voluntarily cooperate with immigration authorities, she said.

“It plays a role in the battle for federalism on civil rights issues, broadly speaking,” Ms. Graber said, “and states that really want more power to enact criminal laws like this.”

Although still in its early stages, the Georgia bill making its way to the state House appears to have a clear path to passage, said David Schaefer, the vice president of research and policy at the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute.

“Language like this, and training around this new language in code, could trigger an increase in compliance with ICE detentions,” he said, adding that state lawmakers have restricted migration many times over the years — a pattern that has been partly influenced by the politics of the election year.

Record numbers of migrants have crossed the southern border under the Biden administration — a fact that Republicans have aggressively used against President Biden and other Democratic lawmakers.

Many conservative politicians, including Governor Brian Kemp of Georgia, born in Athens, have said the murder was related to President Biden’s immigration policy. Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Biden urged to close the border two days after Ms Riley’s death.

But national data suggest there is no causal link between immigration and crime in the country, and the growth of illegal immigration is not leading to higher local crime rates. Lots of research to have found it That immigrants Are less likely than people born in the United States commit crimes.

On Wednesday, a small group of protesters interrupted a news conference and blamed Ms. Riley’s murder on Mr. Girtz, the mayor, saying he had “blood on your hands.” Sometimes their screams drowned out his comments.

In 2019, he passed a resolution “in support of the immigrant, undocumented and Latinx community in Athens” and states that Athens-Clarke County is “committed to undoing the harm” caused by white supremacy.

But the resolution made no mention of the term “sanctuary city,” which protesters on Wednesday claimed Athens had become. Mr. Girtz said the city had not adopted any policy to create sanctuary status, although he acknowledged that the meaning of the term could vary from place to place.

One of the protesters, Laurie Waters Camp of Athens, said she was appalled that Mr. Girtz was “putting undocumented immigrants – his political agenda to bring them here, to welcome them here – over the safety and concerns of our citizens and students had stated.”

Adeel Hassan And Chelsia Rose Marcius reporting contributed.

The Supreme Court heard nearly four hours of arguments Monday on a pair of First Amendment cases challenging laws in Florida and Texas that aim to limit the ability of internet companies to moderate content on their platforms. Here are some takeaways:

The cases could shape the future of internet discourse.

As the public domain has moved online in the 21st century and technology companies like Facebook, YouTube, and

Florida and Texas have passed laws limiting the ability of major internet companies to control what appears on their platforms, partly in response to what some conservatives saw as censorship of right-wing views by Silicon Valley in the name of combating hate speech and disinformation. One of the most notable examples: the decisions by some platforms to ban President Donald J. Trump after he repeatedly posted on social media to falsely claim that his loss in the 2020 election was the result of fraud, leading to the elections of January 6, 2021. , Capitol riot.

An association of tech companies called NetChoice has filed a lawsuit arguing that platforms have the right to moderate the content on their sites — a practice it says is crucial to keeping them attractive to users and advertisers. The coalition has obtained preliminary injunctions blocking both states from enforcing the laws while broader First Amendment issues are litigated.

The court can refer the cases back.

Both liberal and conservative justices indicated they would prefer a more developed record on how the law would work, raising the possibility that the Supreme Court could send the case back to lower courts for more fact-finding.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a conservative, pointed out that there were no lists of which platforms were covered by the Florida statute or of all the functions those services perform. He raised the possibility of sending the case back for more discussion at lower court levels on issues such as whether and how the law applies to other tech services, such as direct messaging and email. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, indicated she was inclined to do the same.

Both parties claim the mantle of freedom of expression.

Attorneys general for Florida and Texas defended their states’ laws, arguing that major internet companies that operate social media platforms that are essentially public forums cannot discriminate based on political views. They portrayed content moderation as censorship.

Paul Clement, a lawyer for NetChoice, argued that “censorship” was the wrong word if it wasn’t the government acting and that the companies were instead exercising “editorial judgment.” He claimed that it was unconstitutional under the First Amendment to force the companies to publish their views against their will.

Are social media like a newspaper? A phone?

The discussion repeatedly referred to precedents involving older technologies as a starting point for how to think about the platforms. Henry Whitaker, Florida’s attorney general, argued that social media platforms should be viewed as “common carriers” like phone companies because they transmit communications from their subscribers — and thus should not discriminate between users based on their opinions. But Mr. Clement argued that they are just like newspapers, citing a 1974 case that struck down a Florida law that required newspapers to give equal space to political candidates who wanted to respond to editorials or endorsements.

The scope of the laws, especially Florida’s, is a complication.

Several justices expressed discomfort that the case reached the Supreme Court as a so-called facial challenge, meaning prosecutors said the law is unconstitutional in the abstract and should be struck down in its entirety. Another way to challenge a law is to say that it is unconstitutional if it is applied to certain categories of activities, while otherwise remaining in force.

Both liberal and conservative justices suggested that the Florida law, which is more broadly written than the Texas law, appears to have broader applications that do not qualify as what is known as expressive conduct and therefore fall outside the First Amendment’s protection of free liberty . speech. For example, they suggested that Florida law would also regulate companies like Uber or Etsy that don’t publish content.

A ruling could come later this spring.

Although the Supreme Court sometimes acts quickly, in this case it will likely take more time. The specific question before the justices is whether to lift preliminary injunctions from lower courts that have blocked Florida and Texas from enforcing their laws as First Amendment lawsuits play out.

But the line between that procedural question and its merits is blurred: The standard for assessing such an order includes assessing whether the party seeking it – in this case, the tech companies – is likely to prevail. As a result, what the Supreme Court says about the order could have a major impact on the outcome of the overall lawsuit.