A federal judge has paused a lawsuit challenging Indiana’s new age verification law for adult websites, pending a U.S. Supreme Court decision on a similar Texas statute. Magistrate Judge Mario Garcia of the Southern District of Indiana issued the stay, temporarily halting the proceedings in Free Speech Coalition et al. v. Rokita.

The decision aligns with a broader judicial strategy to await guidance from the Supreme Court on legal standards for age verification laws.

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on the Texas case, Free Speech Coalition et al. v. Paxton, on January 15, 2025. That case questions whether age verification requirements for online adult content violate constitutional protections of free speech under the First Amendment.

Indiana’s law, approved by the General Assembly earlier this year, mandates that pornographic websites verify users are at least 18 years old. Supporters argue the measure protects minors from exposure to explicit material, while critics claim it infringes on free speech and raises significant privacy concerns regarding the collection and handling of user data.

The lawsuit against Indiana’s law was brought by the Free Speech Coalition (FSC) and other adult industry plaintiffs, who argue the statute imposes unconstitutional burdens on adults’ access to protected speech. The plaintiffs also cite concerns about the potential misuse of personal data gathered during the verification process.

In his ruling, Judge Garcia acknowledged the overlap between the legal issues in the Indiana and Texas cases, particularly regarding the level of judicial scrutiny to be applied when evaluating laws affecting First Amendment rights.

“The issue before the Supreme Court in Paxton is a question of what standard of review is applicable to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech—rational basis vs. strict scrutiny,” Garcia wrote. “This question shares overlap with the various issues brought by [Rokita] in its appeal to the Seventh Circuit.”

Judge Garcia emphasized that pausing the Indiana case would conserve judicial resources and prevent unnecessary legal expenditures while awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision. He noted that the stay would impose minimal prejudice on the state, as the case remains in its early stages.

The outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Paxton could significantly impact Indiana’s law and similar statutes enacted in other states. The central question is whether such laws should face “strict scrutiny”—the highest standard of judicial review typically applied to laws affecting constitutional rights—or a more lenient “rational basis” standard.

In Paxton, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Texas law without applying strict scrutiny, a departure from precedent in cases involving First Amendment protections. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case reflects the need to resolve this judicial inconsistency. The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, overseeing the Indiana case, applied strict scrutiny in its analysis, granting the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law.

Attorney General Todd Rokita, representing Indiana, has aligned with 23 other Republican attorneys general in an amicus brief supporting the Texas law. Rokita’s office argues for the Fifth Circuit’s less stringent approach, which could allow states more leeway in regulating online content to protect minors.

Critics of age verification laws argue that they pose significant risks to online privacy and fail to address the underlying issues of access adequately. The Free Speech Coalition and other opponents contend that requiring users to submit government-issued IDs or undergo biometric scans creates an intrusive and potentially insecure digital footprint.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represents the plaintiffs in Paxton, has called the laws “invasive and burdensome.”

An ACLU attorney described the Texas statute as enabling the government to “rob adults of their online privacy and burden their access to protected speech, all under the guise of protecting children.”

In Texas, the enforcement of its age verification law has already led to unintended consequences. Popular adult site Pornhub blocked access for users with Texas IP addresses, prompting a rise in interest among Texans in Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), which conceal users’ locations.

With the Supreme Court set to hear arguments in January, the Indiana case and others across the country remain in limbo. The eventual ruling in Paxton will likely establish a nationwide precedent, determining the balance between protecting minors online and safeguarding adults’ constitutional rights.

For now, Judge Garcia’s stay underscores the legal complexity and high stakes of these cases. As states continue to enact similar legislation, the tension between privacy, free speech, and child protection remains a contentious and evolving issue.