Trump Can't Block Twitter Followers, US Appeals Court Rules
"If the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less," the Second Circuit said Tuesday.
July 09, 2019 at 10:40 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
President Donald Trump's efforts to block certain critics from following him on Twitter is discriminatory and violates the First Amendment, a U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a lower court ruling against Trump. The plaintiffs, represented by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, are Twitter users who were “blocked” from accessing his social media account.
“Once the president has chosen a platform and opened up its interactive space to millions of users and participants, he may not selectively exclude those whose views he disagrees with,” Circuit Judge Barrington Parker wrote for the unanimous panel.
The panel said: “In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less.”
The panel said the ruling does not consider private social media accounts that may be used by elected officials, and does not consider whether social media companies themselves are bound by the First Amendment when policing their platforms.
In Trump's case, the panel said he uses the account as a way to communicate with the public about his administration.
Trump blocked Twitter users who were critical of his presidency, and a trial court judge in Manhattan last year concluded that blocking these accounts violated the First Amendment. At the time, the Knight Foundation's Jameel Jaffer praised the ruling, which he said “reflects a careful application of core First Amendment principles to government censorship on a new communications platform.”
Jaffer, the Knight Institute's executive director, said in a statement Tuesday:
“Public officials' social media accounts are now among the most significant forums for discussion of government policy. This decision will ensure that people aren't excluded from these forums simply because of their viewpoints, and that public officials aren't insulated from their constituents' criticism. The decision will help ensure the integrity and vitality of digital spaces that are increasingly important to our democracy.”
The appeals court, concluding Trump's account is a public forum, noted how often he uses his account—@realDonaldTrump—to announce official news. Trump, for instance, announced his administration's move to ban transgender service members, and he used his account to announce that he had fired his chief of staff, Reince Priebus, and replaced him with John Kelly.
“The president excluded the individual plaintiffs from government‐controlled property when he used the blocking function of the account to exclude disfavored voices,” the appeals court said Tuesday.
Read the Second Circuit's decision below:
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Effective Remedy'?: DOJ Unveils Corrective Action Plan in Google Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readMassachusetts Federal Judge F. Dennis Saylor to Take Senior Status
What Judicial Nominations Could Look Like Under a President Harris or Trump
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft and Pryor Cashman have entered appearances for Diageo Americas Supply d/b/a Ciroc Distilling Co. and Sony Songs, a division of Sony Music Publishing, respectively, in a pending lawsuit. The case was filed Sept. 10 in New York Southern District Court by the Bloom Firm and IP Legal Studio on behalf of Dawn Angelique Richard. The plaintiff, who performed as a member of producer Sean 'Diddy' Combs girl group Danity Kane and later his band, Diddy - Dirty Money, claims that she was financially exploited by Combs and subjected to inhumane working conditions. Among other violations, Richard claims that Combs required group members to remain at his residences and studios, deprived them of adequate food and sleep and forced them to rehearse for 36 to 48 hours without breaks. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla, is 1:24-cv-06848, Richard v. Combs et al.
Who Got The Work
Mathilda McGee-Tubb and Kevin M. McGinty of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, as well as Jesse W. Belcher-Timme of Doherty, Wallace, Pillsbury & Murphy, have stepped in to defend Peter Pan Bus Lines in a pending consumer class action. The suit, filed Sept. 4 in Massachusetts District Court by Hackett Feinberg PC and KalielGold PLLC, accuses the defendant of charging undisclosed 'junk fees' on top of ticket prices during checkout. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni, is 3:24-cv-12277, Mulani et al v. Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250