2nd Circuit Refuses Rehearing of Decision Barring Trump From Blocking Twitter Users
One of the court's active judges had requested a poll on whether to rehear the case, but a vote fell short of the majority needed to put the matter before the full appeals court.
March 23, 2020 at 12:12 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Monday refused to rehear a 2019 ruling that barred President Donald Trump from blocking certain critics from following him on Twitter.
The Manhattan-based appeals court issued its ruling over the objection of two judges, who said they supported sending the case to the court's full complement of 13 commissioned judges.
The decision to deny en banc rehearing left in place a July 9 ruling from a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit, which held Trump's use of Twitter through his @realDonaldTrump account had created a public forum that could not "selectively exclude" those with opposing viewpoints.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Justice, which represented Trump in the suit, said officials were reviewing the ruling.
An attorney for the plaintiffs, represented by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, did not respond Monday to a request for comment.
According to Monday's decision, one of the court's active judges had requested a poll on whether to rehear the case, but a vote fell short of the majority needed to rehear the case before the entire appeals court.
U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Park said in a 14-page dissent that Trump had not engaged in any official "state action" by posting personal views to his account, which was created in 2009, more than six years before he took office. And the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, he said, did not include a right for plaintiffs to interact with other people's social media accounts, "even if those other people happen to be public officials."
"By departing from the law of state action, the panel decision blurred the line between actions by public officials in the performance of their official duties and actions 'in the ambit of their personal pursuits,'" Park wrote.
"And by fixating on the President's recent tweets, the panel opinion and the concurrence fall into a logical fallacy—i.e., that some official use of a Twitter account turns all use, or even all tweets, into state action," he said in the dissent, joined by Judge Richard Sullivan.
Park and Sullivan were each appointed to the Second Circuit by Trump.
Judge Barrington Parker, who authored the panel's July decision, defended the ruling on Monday as a "straightforward application of state action and public forum doctrines," and pointed to recent examples of tweets that announced official administration positions, including certain military responses Trump said he would take against Iran in January.
"These tweets are published by a public official clothed with the authority of the state using social media as a tool of governance and as an official channel of communication on an interactive public platform," Parker said. "The panel decision discussed the President's use of the Account in an official capacity in detail."
Parker was nominated to the Second Circuit by President George W. Bush.
Judges Debra Ann Livingston and Susan L. Carney took no part in deciding the rehearing petition, the court said.
The plaintiffs were represented by the Knight Foundation's Jameel Jaffer, Katherine Fallow, Caroline DeCell, Alexander Abdo and Meenakshi Krishnan, as well as Jessica Ring Amunson, Tassity Johnson and Tali R. Leinwand of Jenner & Block,
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
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
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