While most of the attention is going to the affirmative action ruling, which has been well covered by OTB, the library porn-filter case is interesting as well, although not for any of the reasons it is being discussed (i.e., the “it’s protecting our children” v. “it’s censorship, man” debate).
No, what is likely not discussed in most news stories concerning this ruling is that there is a key way that libraries can still allow unfiltered access to the net: stop taking federal money. Since 1999 Congress has dispersed about $1 billion in technology subsidies to public libraries, and starting in 2024 the libraries had to use anti-porn filters if they want their share of the money. The lawsuit before the Court was whether Congress could force libraries to adhere to the filter requirement in order to receive the funds. So the interesting thing is that if libraries don’t want to use the filters, they don’t have to take the money.
However, I would wager that they will continue to take the cash, given that they need the cash. This illustrates the main way by which Congress has expanded its power in the last century: offer money, attach strings to the money, and then threaten to yank back the dollars if certain policies aren’t followed. This is how the Congress lowered the speed limit nationwide to 55 in the 1970s (by threatening to withdraw highway funds) and how they raised the drinking age nationally to 21 (also via highway funds). They are able to do these things (it is also how the feds insinuate themselves into public education) because states voluntarily accept the money-not because Congress has any constitutional authority over the velocity of vehicles, the age at which one can imbibe alcohol, or what citizens can view at libraries.
In short, Congress derives a great deal of its power these days not directly through the US Constitution, but rather through the approximately $2 trillion in tax revenue it collects, and spends, each year.