I’d rather they fix Kelo.
There are no dissenting opinions, although some concurring in parts and concurring in the judgment.
The court vacates both decisions, explaining that neither of the lower courts properly considered the nature of the challenges. “The courts mainly addressed what the parties had focused on,” even though the challenges argued that the laws were unconstitutional in all their applications. “And the parties mainly argued these cases as if the laws applied only to the curated feeds offered by the largest and most paradigmatic social-media platforms—as if, say each case presented an as-applied challenge brought by Facebook protesting its loss of control over the content of its News Feed.”
But the court lays out some principles for the lower courts to follow. It indicates, for example, that “the current record indicates that the Texas law does regulate speech when applied in the way the parties focused on below—when applied, that is, to prevent Facebook (or YouTube) from using its content-moderation standards to remove, alter, organize, prioritize, or disclaim posts in its News Feed.”