Supreme Court Lets Texas Age-Verification Law For App Stores Take Effect

Texas can start enforcing its law requiring app stores to verify users' ages, after the Supreme Court declined to block it while litigation continues, according to an order issued Monday and reported by The Record.

The decision is a setback for a student advocacy group and a tech industry trade association, who had asked the justices for an emergency stay to freeze the law until a lower court reaches a final ruling. The Supreme Court said no, meaning the Texas App Store Accountability Act, known as TASAA, is now live even though the underlying constitutional questions haven't been settled.

Texas signed TASAA into law in May 2025. It requires app developers and app store operators to verify a user's age and get parental consent before anyone under 18 can download an app. It also forces developers to assign age ratings to their apps, a requirement the Computer and Communications Industry Association has called "burdensome." CCIA's membership includes Google, Meta and Apple, giving the group a direct stake in how the law shakes out.

A Law That Keeps Flipping

TASAA has had a bumpy road through the courts, with judges disagreeing on whether it can survive First Amendment scrutiny. A federal judge in Texas paused enforcement back in December. Then, just last month, an appeals court reversed course and reinstated the law. Monday's Supreme Court order lets that reinstatement stand for now, keeping TASAA in effect while the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals prepares to hear arguments on the merits in August.

That timeline matters: nothing about Monday's order resolves whether TASAA is actually constitutional. It only decides that Texas doesn't have to wait for that answer before it starts enforcing the law.

The First Amendment Fight

Opponents, including youth advocates and the tech industry, argue TASAA infringes on minors' free speech rights by making it harder for them to access apps and the information or communities those apps connect them to. CCIA has framed its objection in privacy terms as well, saying the law forces people to hand over personal data just to use everyday technology. In a statement, the group said it intends to show TASAA violates the First Amendment, arguing that "people should not have to turn over personal data to access the internet any more than they should show government identification to enter a bookstore."

Texas and its allies see it differently. More than two dozen state attorneys general, spanning both parties, filed an amicus brief last month backing the law. Their argument centers on the failure of existing safeguards, particularly on social media, where parental controls have technically existed for years without doing much good. As the brief put it: "The lack of current controls is especially well-documented in the social media context. Platforms have long had parental controls, but they have made no dent in child addiction." The brief added that this is partly because parents don't use the controls, and partly because the controls don't work even when they do.

Part of a Bigger Pattern

TASAA isn't Texas's first swing at regulating kids' access to digital platforms through age verification, and it isn't the first to reach the Supreme Court. Last year, the justices upheld a separate Texas law that requires age verification to keep minors off pornography websites. That ruling gives some indication of where the Court's sympathies may lie on age-verification mandates generally, though TASAA is a different law covering a much broader swath of the app ecosystem, not just adult content sites.

For now, the practical effect is straightforward: app developers and app store operators in Texas need to have age verification and consent systems in place, and apps need age ratings, while the Fifth Circuit works through the underlying case. Whether that infrastructure stays in place long-term depends on what happens in August, and likely on further appeals after that. The Supreme Court's refusal to intervene early keeps the law running in the meantime, but it leaves the core constitutional fight for another day.