The U.S. Supreme Court this week wrestled with arguments from Google (GOOG) (GOOGL), Twitter, and Facebook (META), in two sister cases that say the companies should be liable for “aiding and abetting” terrorist attacks allegedly tied to content posted to their platforms.

In the cases, Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh, the court could set new boundaries to interpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 law that arguably supports the economic models of social media and other interactive websites hosting third party content—and antiterrorism laws that allow victims of international terrorist attacks to seek compensation from those who “aid and abet” the assaults.

Section 230 law broadly exempts websites from legal liability when harm is caused by that content.

Section 2333 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, as amended, allows U.S. nationals injured by an act of international terrorism perpetrated by a designated foreign terrorist organization to sue those who sponsor the attacks.

The court is expected to hand down rulings in both cases before July.

Legal experts say that justices across the ideological spectrum made strange bedfellows in their reluctance to broadly tackle the difficult issues presented by both Section 230 and the antiterrorism laws.

“However, in some sense, that may be a blessing in disguise,” Doug Mirell, a partner with the law firm Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger and Section 230 expert, told Yahoo Finance. “At least to the extent it motivates Congress to finally address, in a bipartisan way, the defects that the past quarter century of experience has revealed.”

One potential reason for treading lightly: limiting 230 protection, said attorney Neama Rahmani, could upend the economic models that sustain social media platforms and other sites that rely on others’ content to fuel lucrative advertising markets. More liability could push sites to remove significantly more or less potentially harmful or offensive content and expose sites to higher legal expenses.