WASHINGTON, July 1 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on

Monday threw out a pair of judicial decisions involving

challenges to Republican-backed laws in Florida and Texas

designed to restrict the power of social media companies to curb

content that the platforms deem objectionable.

The justices directed lower appeals courts to reconsider

their decisions regarding these 2021 laws authorizing the states

to regulate the content-moderation practices of large social

media platforms. Tech industry trade groups challenged the two

laws under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment limits on the

government's ability to restrict speech.

The ruling came on the final day of the Supreme Court's term

that began in October.

The laws were challenged by tech industry trade groups

NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association

(CCIA), whose members include Facebook parent Meta Platforms ( META )

, Alphabet's Google, which owns YouTube, as

well as TikTok and Snapchat owner Snap.

Lower courts split on the issue, blocking key provisions of

Florida's law while upholding the Texas measure. Neither law has

gone into effect due to the litigation.

At issue was whether the First Amendment protects the

editorial discretion of the social media platforms and prohibits

governments from forcing companies to publish content against

their will. The companies have said that without such discretion

- including the ability to block or remove content or users,

prioritize certain posts over others or include additional

context - their websites would be overrun with spam, bullying,

extremism and hate speech.

Many Republicans have argued that social media platforms

stifle conservative voices in the guise of content moderation,

branding this as censorship.

President Joe Biden's administration opposed the Florida and

Texas laws, arguing that the content-moderation restrictions

violate the First Amendment by forcing platforms to present and

promote content they view as objectionable.

Officials from Florida and Texas countered that the

content-moderation actions by these companies fall outside the

protection of the First Amendment because such conduct is not

itself speech.

The Texas law would forbid social media companies with at

least 50 million monthly active users from acting to "censor"

users based on "viewpoint," and allows either users or the Texas

attorney general to sue to enforce it.

Florida's law would constrain the ability of large platforms

to exclude certain content by prohibiting the censorship or

banning of a political candidate or "journalistic enterprise."

Another issue presented in the cases was whether the state

laws unlawfully burden the free speech rights of social media

companies by requiring them to provide users with individualized

explanations for certain content-moderation decisions, including

the removal of posts from their platforms.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has addressed

free speech rights in the digital age during its current term.

The justices on March 15 decided that government officials

can sometimes be sued under the First Amendment for blocking

critics on social media. In another case, the justices on June

26 declined to impose limits on the way Biden's administration

may communicate with social media platforms, rejecting a First

Amendment challenge to how U.S. officials encouraged the removal

of posts deemed misinformation, including about elections and

COVID.

Florida sought to revive its law after the Atlanta-based

11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled largely against it. The

industry groups appealed a decision by the New Orleans-based 5th

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the Texas law, which the

Supreme Court blocked at an earlier stage of the case.

Conservative critics of "Big Tech" companies have cited as

an example of what they called censorship the decision by the

platform previously called Twitter to suspend then-President

Donald Trump shortly after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S.

Capitol by his supporters, with the company citing "the risk of

further incitement of violence."

Trump's account has since been reinstated under Elon Musk,

who now owns the company renamed X. Trump is the Republican

candidate challenging Biden, a Democrat, in the Nov. 5 U.S.

election.