The Evolving Landscape of Constitutional and Regulatory Law in the Digital Age

By  Daphne Salas

Recent developments in constitutional and regulatory law reveal a judiciary increasingly willing to recalibrate long-standing legal doctrines in response to technological change, national security concerns, and shifting political priorities. Between 2024 and 2025, courts at both the federal and state levels confronted issues that test the outer boundaries of the First Amendment, antitrust enforcement, and criminal procedure. These cases illustrate not merely isolated doctrinal adjustments, but a broader trend toward granting the government expanded regulatory authority, often at the expense of traditional civil liberties. This essay examines three areas where that shift is most visible: digital speech regulation, antitrust enforcement against technology monopolies, and the scope of state power in criminal justice and surveillance.

In TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, the Supreme Court upheld federal legislation requiring the divestiture or ban of TikTok due to national security concerns related to foreign ownership. The Court rejected the argument that the statute constituted an impermissible restriction on speech, emphasizing Congress’s authority to act in the interest of national security. While framed as a regulation of corporate ownership rather than expression, the law's practical effect is to remove a central platform used by millions of Americans for speech and political engagement.

The decision signals a meaningful shift in First Amendment analysis. Historically, courts have treated laws that burden speech, especially when they do so at such a sweeping scale, with deep skepticism. By deferring to legislative judgments grounded in national security, the Court appears to lower the constitutional barrier for future regulations targeting speech intermediaries. Critics warn that this approach risks allowing the government to suppress speech indirectly by targeting the platforms that host it. This concern resonates strongly in an era where digital spaces function as modern public forums.

The Court’s willingness to relax First Amendment scrutiny is also evident in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, which upheld a Texas law requiring age verification for access to certain online content. Rather than applying strict scrutiny, the Court used intermediate scrutiny, emphasizing the state’s interest in protecting minors. This analytical move departs from prior precedent that treated adult access to lawful speech as deserving of the highest constitutional protection.

Together, these cases suggest that the Court is increasingly receptive to content-based digital regulations when justified by child protection or national security. While these interests are undeniably significant, the resulting doctrinal shift raises serious questions about whether traditional First Amendment safeguards remain robust in the digital age.

Antitrust law has also undergone a notable transformation, particularly in cases involving dominant technology firms. In United States v. Google LLC, a federal district court held that Google unlawfully monopolized key segments of the digital advertising market in violation of the Sherman Act. The ruling emphasized exclusionary conduct and the reinforcement of market power through vertical integration, concepts rooted in traditional antitrust theory but applied to modern, multi-sided digital markets.

This case reflects a broader revival of structural antitrust enforcement after decades of judicial restraint driven by consumer welfare analysis. Courts now appear more willing to recognize that control over digital infrastructure can distort competition even in the absence of immediate price effects. The Google litigation thus marks a turning point in how courts conceptualize monopoly power in the digital economy.

At the same time, courts have limited administrative agencies' authority to regulate technology markets. In Ohio Telecom Association v. FCC, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the Federal Communications Commission lacked statutory authority to impose common-carrier obligations on broadband providers. The decision significantly undermined efforts to reinstate net neutrality rules and reinforced a broader judicial skepticism toward expansive agency power.

The tension between aggressive antitrust enforcement and constrained regulatory authority reflects an unsettled legal framework. While courts recognize the dangers of concentrated tech power, they remain divided over which institutions are best equipped to address it.

In criminal law, courts have likewise demonstrated increased tolerance for expanded state authority. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision to uphold non-unanimous jury recommendations in death penalty cases represents a stark departure from the historical emphasis on unanimity as a safeguard against wrongful execution. By allowing an 8–4 jury vote to support a death sentence, the court prioritized legislative judgment over evolving standards of decency and procedural reliability.

Concerns about state power extend beyond the courtroom. Expanded federal surveillance initiatives aimed at domestic political movements have sparked renewed debate over the First Amendment’s protection of association and dissent. While the government frames these efforts as necessary for public safety, civil liberties advocates argue that such programs risk chilling lawful political activity, echoing the abuses of prior eras.

Finally, courts have begun confronting the implications of artificial intelligence in legal practice. Recent sanctions imposed on attorneys for submitting AI-generated filings containing fabricated citations underscore the judiciary’s insistence that technological convenience cannot replace professional responsibility. These cases serve as an early warning that while AI may transform legal practice, it does not diminish the ethical duties owed to courts and clients.

The legal developments of 2024 and 2025 reveal a judiciary navigating unprecedented challenges posed by technology, security concerns, and institutional authority. Across constitutional law, antitrust enforcement, and criminal procedure, courts have shown a growing willingness to accommodate expanded government power, often by reinterpreting or narrowing long-standing doctrinal protections. Whether this trend represents a necessary adaptation or an erosion of fundamental liberties remains an open and pressing question. As digital platforms continue to shape public discourse and economic life, the balance struck by courts today will define the contours of American law for decades to come.

Citations

1. TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, 602 U.S. (2025).

2. Free Speech Coal. v. Paxton, 602 U.S. (2024).

3. United States v. Google LLC, 2024 WL (D.D.C. 2024).

4. Ohio Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 95 F.4th (6th Cir. 2025).

5. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

6. Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020).

7. Model Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 1.1 (Am. Bar Ass’n 2023).

The Evolving Landscape of Constitutional and Regulatory Law in the Digital Age