Clarence Thomas Warns of 'Danger' After Supreme Court Decision

Justice Clarence Thomas testifies before the House Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee on Capitol Hill, Washington DC, March 13, 2008. Thomas dissented to the Supreme Court's decision to deny certiorari in John Doe v. Snap, Inc. on Tuesday.

Justice Clarence Thomas warned there could be "danger" after the Supreme Court refused to take up a case brought by a teen who alleged that his science teacher used Snapchat to lure him into a sexual relationship.

On Tuesday, the Court decided to not hear the case of John Doe v. Snap, Inc. Two conservative justices on the bench, however, disagreed, saying they would have granted the petition, which would have allowed the Court to "address whether social-media platforms—some of the largest and most powerful companies in the world—can be held responsible for their own misconduct."

"Although the Court denies certiorari today, there will be other opportunities in the future. But, make no mistake about it—there is danger in delay," Thomas wrote in a dissent, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

In the lawsuit against Snapchat's parent company, lawyers for an unnamed 15-year-old Texas teen allege that the boy's science teacher groomed him using the platform. The suit also claims that certain Snapchat features, including disappearing messages, enable abuse by predators while encouraging users to lie about their age and that Snapchat should be liable for its defective design.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear the case in December, affirming a 2022 decision from a federal trial judge in Houston, who dismissed the case under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 protects internet publishers from liability for third-party speech created by users.

On Tuesday, Thomas argued that "social-media platforms have increasingly used §230 as a get-out-of-jail free card." He said that many platforms have maintained that the content created by users is protected under the First Amendment but that "when it comes time for platforms to be held accountable for their websites...they argue the opposite."

"Platforms claim that since they are not speakers under §230, they cannot be subject to any suit implicating users' content, even if the suit revolves around the platform's alleged misconduct," Thomas wrote.

"In the platforms' world, they are fully responsible for their websites when it results in constitutional protections, but the moment that responsibility could lead to liability, they can disclaim any obligations and enjoy greater protections from suit than nearly any other industry," he said. "The Court should consider if this state of affairs is what §230 demands."

There has been considerable momentum behind an effort to narrow the scope of Section 230. At least 40 bills amending the law have been introduced in Congress, but none have passed.

This is not the first time that Thomas has objected to the Supreme Court's avoidance of cases challenging Section 230 immunity. When the Court declined to review a Texas Supreme Court decision shielding Facebook from claims that it enabled a predator to meet, and later rape, a 15-year-old girl, Thomas argued it was "hard to see" why immunity should cover Facebook's alleged acts and urged the Court to clarify "in an appropriate case."

Start your unlimited Newsweek trial