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 AllTrump Picks Personal Criminal Defense Lawyers for Solicitor General, Deputy Attorney General
'Health Care Behemoth'?: DOJ Seeks Injunction Blocking $3.3B UnitedHealth Merger Proposal
3 minute readFreshfields Hires DOJ Official, Squire Taps Paul Hastings Atty for US Antitrust Head
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Nelson Mullins, Greenberg Traurig, Jones Day Have Established Themselves As Biggest Outsiders in Atlanta Legal Market
- 2Immunity for Mental Health Care and Coverage for CBD: What's on the Pa. High Court's November Calendar
- 3How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 4Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 5Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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