This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioner, lester Gerard Packingham is challenging North Carolina’s Section 202.5, which criminalizes social media use by registered sex offenders.
The petitioner argues the law is an overbroad restriction on First Amendment activity.
Background and question before the Court
Petitioner contends that Section 202.5 reaches speech unrelated to the government’s preventative purpose, such as speaking to friends and family about a traffic‑court case.
According to Justice Kennedy, the Court asked whether a state can impose such a restriction as a condition of parole.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justices also questioned whether the statute is overbroad and fails constitutional scrutiny.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to Petitioner, the law is a stark abridgement of the Freedom of Speech because it reaches vast swaths of core First Amendment activity unrelated to the government’s preventative purpose.
Respondent Position
According to Mr. Montgomery, the statute is narrowly tailored; it excludes some major commercial sites, which the respondent argues is a virtue rather than a vice.
According to Mr. Montgomery, the respondent likens the case to Burson v. Freeman, suggesting that a 100‑foot buffer zone limiting political speech was permissible, and argues the same principle applies here.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kennedy asked whether a state could impose the restriction as a condition of parole.
Justice Sotomayor asked whether the statute is overbroad and fails the level of scrutiny the Court would apply.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts inquired about the possibility of a more narrowly tailored alternative.
Justice Sotomayor asked whether the state can determine a user’s age to enforce the restriction.
Justice Kagan asked which social networking sites are covered by the statute, mentioning Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Snapchat.
- [1] ad3a0d7aefb660051022-r1-4f8df18b7f97683a.pdf, p. 4
- [2] ad3a0d7aefb660051022-r1-4f8df18b7f97683a.pdf, p. 10
- [3] ad3a0d7aefb660051022-r1-4f8df18b7f97683a.pdf, p. 22
- [4] ad3a0d7aefb660051022-r1-4f8df18b7f97683a.pdf, p. 26
- [5] ad3a0d7aefb660051022-r1-4f8df18b7f97683a.pdf, p. 27
- [6] ad3a0d7aefb660051022-r1-4f8df18b7f97683a.pdf, p. 38
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- ad3a0d7aefb660051022-r1-4f8df18b7f97683a.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 25, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.