United States: 2nd Circ. Trump Twitter Ruling Will Bolster Public Discourse

Last Updated: July 29 2019
Article by Dori Hanswirth, Theresa M. House and Cathy M. Liu

On July 9, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Donald J. Trump1 and affirmed the district court's ruling that President Donald Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked users from his Twitter account.

Specifically, the court held that Trump engaged in unlawful viewpoint discrimination when he blocked users who criticized him or his policies on his @realDonaldTrump Twitter account from further viewing and interacting with the tweets on his page.

In 2009, before his presidency, Trump registered the @realDonaldTrump account as a personal account and used it to comment on pop culture, politics and other topics. Since his inauguration in January 2017, Trump has used the account almost exclusively to communicate and interact with the public on issues relating to his administration and to conduct official government affairs. The president has explained that he uses the account to promote his legislative agenda, announce official administration decisions and to engage with foreign political leaders.

The account is open without restriction to the public, such that anyone can view the president's tweets by accessing his page. Additionally, unless they have been blocked, users can access his account to interact with his tweets in a number of ways. For instance, users can comment on his tweets, express endorsement by "liking" or "retweeting" them and reply to other users' comments to his posts. Trump's tweets generate an extraordinarily high level of public engagement, typically with hundreds of thousands of comments and replies.

The District Court Decision

After assuming office, Trump blocked certain users on Twitter for criticizing him or his policies. When blocked, these users were unable to directly view or interact with Trump's tweets on his account while logged into their accounts. Thus, in order to engage with the president's tweets, they had to rely on "workarounds," such as creating a new account, or commenting on "retweets" of Trump's posts on another account.

In July 2017, a number of blocked users filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Trump and other White House staff, alleging that the blocking constituted viewpoint discrimination and therefore violated their First Amendment rights. The district court ruled in their favor, holding that the "interactive space" on the president's account – the areas where users can reply to, "retweet" or "like" his tweets (as well as comments on them) – is a public forum for First Amendment purposes and that exclusion of the plaintiffs from such spaces because of their expressed political views was unconstitutional.

Second Circuit Affirms

On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed. In doing so, the court rejected each of Trump's arguments. First, Trump asserted that the act of blocking the plaintiffs is not subject to constitutional scrutiny because he acted as a private citizen in controlling his private Twitter account.

The First Amendment restricts the government from regulating speech but not does not apply to purely private actors. Accordingly, First Amendment concerns arise when the president restricts speech in his official governmental capacity on a government-controlled account, but are not implicated if he acts in a non-governmental capacity on a purely private account.

Trump argued that because he registered the account as a personal one in 2009, and will retain private control over it after his presidency, the account is not government controlled for First Amendment purposes. The court disagreed, explaining that the government's ownership of a space, in terms of having title rights to it, is not determinative, and that pervasive temporary control can also render a space government controlled.

In applying this principle, the court found that since the start of the Trump presidency, the government maintained "substantial and pervasive involvement with, and control over the Account" – rendering it government controlled, not private.

The court observed that Trump and other White House staff continuously have represented that the account belongs to and is operated by Trump in his role as president. For instance, the account states that it is registered to "Donald J. Trump, '45th President of the United States of America, Washington, D.C.'" Its header photo shows Trump performing official duties, such as signing executive orders and meeting foreign dignitaries.

Official government accounts, including the @WhiteHouse and @POTUS accounts, have urged users to follow the account and have frequently "retweeted" its posts. Additionally, the court emphasized that, functionally, Trump uses the account to conduct official government affairs, including to make public announcements on policy matters, and to engage with foreign leaders, noting that "since he took office, the President has consistently used the Account as an important tool of governance and executive outreach."

The court concluded that because the president "acts in an official capacity when he tweets ... he acts in the same capacity when he blocks those who disagree with him."

The president next argued that his Twitter account is not a public forum, and that even if it were, the plaintiffs were not excluded from it. The court disagreed, finding that Trump created a public forum when he used the account as a vehicle for governance, and made its interactive features accessible to the public without limitations. It recognized users' replies to and "retweets" and "likes" of Trump's tweets (and the comments to them) as forms of expressive speech and conduct.

Accordingly, it held that by blocking the plaintiffs – thereby preventing them from engaging in protected expression on his account – the president did, in fact, exclude them from a public forum. The court was unpersuaded by the argument that the plaintiffs were not excluded because they could engage with his tweets through "workarounds," such as commenting on "retweets" on another user's page, explaining that "burdens to speech as well as outright bans run afoul of the First Amendment."

Finally, Trump argued that, to the extent the account is government controlled, the content of the account should be considered government speech. Under the government speech doctrine, the free speech clause does not require the government to maintain viewpoint neutrality with respect to its own speech about governmental affairs.

The court disagreed and held that while Trump's original tweets (those that he produced himself) are government speech, the "retweets," replies, and "likes" of other users in response were private speech – which the president could not exclude from a public forum because of its political message.

Quoting Matal v. Tam,2 the court recognized the U.S. Supreme Court's recent caution against "'silenc[ing] or muffl[ing] the expression of disfavored viewpoints' under the guise of the government speech doctrine," and noted that extending "the doctrine in the way urged by President Trump would produce precisely this result."

In Knight, the Second Circuit joined the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Fifth Circuits – which issued similar decisions this year in Davidson v. Randall3 and Robinson v. Hunt County, Texas4 – in recognizing the unconstitutionality of banning disfavored political speech on a public official's social media account.

By recognizing that "social media is entitled to the same First Amendment protections as other forms of media" and that "[r]eplying, retweeting, and liking are all expressive conduct," this decision will provide useful guidance to a growing number of social media banning cases pending in federal courts and will likely impact how public officials with social media presence engage with their constituents online.

For instance, Knight recognized that public officials are not categorically prohibited from blocking users on their social media accounts and that the constitutionality of blocking turns on whether the account is government-controlled or private.

Noting that "not every social media account operated by a public official is a government account," the court explained that determining which category an account falls into is a fact-specific inquiry that depends on "how the official describes and uses the account; to whom features of the account are made available; and how others, including government officials and agencies, regard and treat the account."

Moreover, Knight is significant for holding that the class of plaintiffs with standing to sue in social media blocking cases is not limited to blocked users but also includes those with a desire to read blocked comments and posts– a group that is vast and seemingly boundless.

In addition to the individual plaintiffs, the Knight First Amendment Institute, an organization that supports the freedoms of speech and press in the digital age and a follower of the @realDonaldTrump account, was a plaintiff in Knight. It sued Trump under the theory that the president's blocking infringed upon its desire to read comments that would have otherwise been posted.

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that all plaintiffs in the case had standing to sue. While it did not provide much discussion on this issue because standing was not challenged on appeal, the lower court set forth useful insight.

The district court held that the Knight Institute's alleged injury-in-fact (the infringement of its desire to read blocked posts) was not a generalized grievance and therefore suitable for Article III standing, notwithstanding the large number of other individuals who might share this injury. It hinted that the Knight Institute's bare assertion that it possessed a desire to view the blocked content was sufficient to confer it standing and explained that, even if it could not, the fact that the institute had followed one of the seven individual plaintiffs on twitter was enough to establish injury-in-fact.

In the Second Circuit, social media users have swiftly used Knight to hold other politicians accountable to its holding. A few days after it was issued, Knight formed the legal basis for a number of First Amendment challenges against Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for allegedly blocking the plaintiffs on Twitter in response to the political views they expressed on her account.

In light of Knight and the other rulings this year, public officials with social media presence should take to heart the court's observation that the "debate" taking place on their accounts is a "good thing" – as it "encompasses an extraordinarily broad range of ideas and viewpoints and generates a level of passion and intensity the likes of which have rarely been seen" – and that "the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less."5

  1. Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia University v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2019).
  2. Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744, 1758 (2017).
  3. Davidson v. Randall, 912 F.3d 666 (4th Cir. 2019).
  4. Robinson v. Hunt County, Texas, 921 F.3d 440 (5th Cir. 2019).
  5. 928 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2019).

Originally published in Law360

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions