The Supreme Court handed a temporary win to social media giants like Facebook (META), YouTube (GOOG, GOOGL), and TikTok as it sent a set of free speech cases back to the lower courts.

But the unanimous decision left unsettled the question of whether states can strip dominant social media companies of their power to unilaterally block users or remove posts that express certain viewpoints.

The set of cases before the high court challenged state laws in Florida and Texas limiting the capacity of such platforms to moderate posts.

The Supreme Court punted Monday on two cases concerning whether Florida and Texas’ anti-social media “censorship” laws are lawful under the First Amendment—providing no real clarity for either GOP-led states or the social media companies challenging them, as the court sent both cases back to lower courts after justices ruled unanimously that the lower courts hadn’t properly evaluated the issue.

The Supreme Court declined to rule Monday on challenges to laws out of Florida and Texas that curtail content regulation by social media giants, a rule meant to protect conservative voices on major platforms like Facebook and X.

In a unanimous decision for the combined NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice cases authored by liberal Justice Elana Kagan, the high court concluded that neither of the lower courts which considered the laws “conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges.”