The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared open to upholding a Texas law requiring age verification for accessing online pornography, sparking a critical First Amendment debate. The case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, centers on whether the law infringes on adults’ rights to access legal content or serves a legitimate state interest in protecting minors.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton defended the law as a necessary measure to shield children from harmful material. “We feel very good about our arguments,” Paxton said, standing alongside his wife, State Sen. Angela Paxton, who drafted the legislation. Citing research linking early exposure to pornography with mental health issues, Paxton argued the law strikes the right balance between protecting minors and respecting adults’ rights.

Opponents, led by the adult entertainment industry, claim the law imposes unconstitutional burdens on adults by requiring government-issued IDs or financial information to verify age. Derek Shaffer, representing the industry, argued, “Adults in Texas seeking to view legal pornography should have confidentiality that is legally assured.” He suggested content-filtering technology as a better alternative, a point Justice Samuel Alito swiftly dismissed. “Do you know a lot of parents who are more tech-savvy than their 15-year-old children? Come on. Be real,” Alito retorted.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett also expressed doubts about the effectiveness of relying solely on at-home filtering solutions, pointing out the numerous ways minors can bypass such safeguards. “Kids can get online porn through gaming systems, tablets, phones, computers,” Barrett said. “Content filtering for all those different devices … is difficult to keep up with.”

While the justices debated the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny—strict scrutiny or the less rigorous rational-basis test—the conversation repeatedly returned to the law’s impact on children. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas emphasized that the digital landscape has changed dramatically since previous rulings on sexually explicit content. “The nature of pornography has also changed in those 35 years,” Roberts noted, signaling a willingness to reassess legal precedents.

The case comes amid a wave of similar laws in 19 states, reflecting bipartisan concern over minors’ access to explicit material online. Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson argued the law is narrowly tailored to achieve its goal without infringing on adults’ rights. He highlighted third-party verification systems as a solution that respects privacy while preventing minors from accessing harmful content.

Critics of the law, including groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, claim it jeopardizes user privacy and could block some adults entirely from accessing legal material. However, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed largely unmoved by these arguments, with several justices questioning whether the adult entertainment industry’s motives aligned with protecting constitutional rights or preserving profits.

A ruling in favor of Texas could set a precedent, giving states more leeway to regulate online content in the interest of protecting children. The decision, expected by June, could mark a turning point in balancing free speech rights with the growing dangers of the digital age.