I selected the article from NEXUS-UNI titled "Four Key Takeaways from the Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton Oral Arguments." This piece outlines critical aspects of the recent U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments regarding state laws from Florida and Texas that aim to regulate social media platforms. These laws challenge the balance between state control and constitutional rights, particularly focusing on how platforms moderate content, which raises significant First Amendment free speech concerns (States News Service, 2024). These cases are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court, emphasizing their federal nature. As Walston-Dunham (2019) notes, "The U.S. Supreme Court is the final authority on all matters of federal jurisdiction within the U.S. legal system" (p.37). This involvement highlights the national importance of these cases, as they directly address federal constitutional rights. The Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari reflects the significance of these constitutional implications (Walston-Dunham, 2019, p. 37). Moreover, these cases are classified under civil law, which involves disputes over regulation compliance rather than criminal offenses. Civil law seeks to resolve private rights and remedies conflicts, focusing on non-criminal sanctions (Walston-Dunham, 2019, p. 109). The primary legal concern is whether the state laws unconstitutionally restrict the social media platforms' First Amendment rights, rather than involving any c