Utah Delays Constitutional Reckoning Over Its Social Media Law By Promising To Repeal & Replace It

As you may recall, Utah was the first of a bunch of states to pass one of the now increasingly popular laws trying to ban kids from social media. Utah legislators knew they'd get sued over it, and for that reason set a date for the law to go into effect in March of this year (over a year after the bill became law). For unclear reasons, the bill was not challenged immediately. In late December, NetChoice finally sued to block the law. By that point, bill author Michael McKell had already said he had planned to amend the law.

Apparently not wanting a court to actually examine just how unconstitutional the bill actually is, Utah's Attorney General Sean Reyes asked the court to put off a hearing, saying that the legislature had agreed to pushback the enforcement of the law until October... and that the legislature planned to repeal and replace the bill with something else anyway.

Defendants Sean D. Reyes and Katherine Hass respectfully request that the Court amend the briefing schedule and vacate or continue the hearing currently set for February 12, 2024 because the effective date of the law at issue in this case has been postponed until October 1, 2024 and the Legislature is likely to repeal and replace the law during the current legislative session.

In response, NetChoice asked for the hearing to still be held, noting that the harm was still present (and that companies might still need to implement what the bill - unconstitutionally - requires).

Either way the judge agreed to not hold the planned hearing and to postpone it given the reasons Utah stated:

Given the delayed implementation of Utah's Social Media Regulation Act and given the possibility that the Act will be altered during Utah's legislative session, the court strikes the current briefing schedule and will vacate the February 12 hearing. The parties are to meet and confer and provide a joint notice by March 15, 2024 proposing an updated briefing schedule.

I understand why the judge would do this, but the whole situation seems kind of silly. If you're going to repeal and replace" or alter" a law before it's implemented, why did you pass it in the first place. And why were these decisions only made once you got sued?

It just feels like it puts an exclamation point in what a laughingstock the Utah legislature is on this issue. They know it's unconstitutional. They know it's pure grandstanding and culture warrioring. And they don't want to face the music for abusing the rights of the citizens who elected them to support the Constitution, not undermine it.