Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump

Overview

court	United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
courtseal	Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.svg
arguedate	March 6,
argueyear	2019
decidedate	July 9,
decideyear	2019
fullname	Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University; Rebecca Buckwalter; Philip Cohen; Holly Figueroa; Eugene Gu; Brandon Neely; Joseph Papp; and Nicholas Pappas, Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States; Sean M. Spicer, White House Press Secretary; and Daniel Scavino, White House Director of Social Media and Assistant to the President, Defendants.
citations	928 F.3d 226
appealed to	Trump v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University
subsequent actions	Vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court as Biden v. Knight First Am. Inst., No. 20-197, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), after the controversy was mooted by the inauguration of Joseph R. Biden, Jr. as President. Further clarified by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (2024).
holding	Because it was held out to the public as an official account for conducting official business, President Trump's Twitter account functioned as a public forum.
judges	Barrington D. Parker, Jr., Peter W. Hall, Christopher F. Droney
majority	Parker
joinmajority	a unanimous court
lawsapplied	First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226 (2nd Cir. 2019), was a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on the use of social media as a public forum.[1] The plaintiffs, Philip N. Cohen, Eugene Gu, Holly Figueroa O'Reilly, Nicholas Pappas, Joseph M. Papp, Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza, and Brandon Neely, were a group of Twitter users blocked by then-U.S. President Donald Trump's personal @realDonaldTrump account.[2] They alleged that Twitter constitutes a public forum, and that a government official blocking access to that forum violates the First Amendment. The lawsuit also named as defendants White House press secretary Sean Spicer and social media director Dan Scavino.[3][4][5]

Circuit Court ruling and appeal to U.S. Supreme Court

The Second Circuit issued its decision in July 2019, upholding the district court ruling.[1][27] The Second Circuit determined that Trump used his Twitter account to conduct what he held out to the public to be official government business, and therefore, he cannot block Americans from the account on the basis of viewpoint.[28][29] The government was denied an en banc review by the full Second Circuit in March 2020.[30]

Trump petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court in August 2020 to hear his appeal of the Second Circuit ruling. Trump's petition requested that the Supreme Court answer the question of "Whether the First Amendment deprives a government official of his right to control his personal Twitter account by blocking third-party accounts if he uses that personal account in part to announce official actions and policies."[31] Following the 2020 election, in which Joe Biden was elected president, Biden became the petitioning party for this case (now known as Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute) and other pending Supreme Court cases, replacing Trump in his role as president.[32] On January 19, 2021, the Department of Justice filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to vacate the Second Circuit ruling on the grounds that Trump was soon leaving office and thus the case no longer concerned his account in its official capacity, thus rendering the case moot.[33] The Knight Institute responded by arguing that the Second Circuit ruling should remain, claiming "The case is moot because President Trump's repeated violation of Twitter's terms of service led that company to shut down his account and to ban him permanently from its platform. Because it was President Trump's own voluntary actions that made the case moot, the Supreme Court should leave the appeals court's ruling in place."[34]

The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the Department of Justice, vacating the decision and remanding the case to the Second Circuit as to render the case moot on April 5, 2021.[35][36] Justice Clarence Thomas issued a 12-page concurring opinion, arguing that Twitter and similar companies could face some First Amendment restrictions even though they are not government agencies. Thomas suggested that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act had perhaps been construed too broadly, and that Twitter, Facebook, et al., should be regulated as common carriers.[37]

Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump

Background

District Court ruling

Circuit Court ruling and appeal to U.S. Supreme Court

Impact

Subsequent developments

See also

References