During a recent hearing, Justice Elena Kagan raised concerns about the potential implications of the Supreme Court's ruling on a case involving government restrictions on speech. The case in question revolves around whether a Texas law should be subject to strict scrutiny, a high level of judicial review, or rational basis review, a lower level of review that typically results in laws being upheld.
Justice Kagan highlighted the concept of 'spillover dangers,' suggesting that a broad ruling in this case could have far-reaching effects on other government restrictions on speech. She pointed out two potential risks: the possibility that relaxing strict scrutiny in one instance could lead to broader relaxation in other areas, and the risk that treating a content-based law as not requiring strict scrutiny could result in more content-based restrictions that do not meet the strict scrutiny standard.
The Biden administration attorney, Brian Fletcher, argued in favor of the law's challengers and proposed that the court could clarify that the regular strict scrutiny standard should be applied differently due to the unique features of this case.
Overall, the main issue at hand is whether the Texas law should be subject to a rigorous level of judicial review or a more lenient standard. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for how government restrictions on speech are evaluated in the future.
