Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump
928 F.3d 226
2d Cir.2019Background
- President Trump used the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account extensively for official announcements and interactions after taking office; the account is presented as presidential and tweets are treated as Presidential Records.
- Seven individual users were blocked from the account after posting critical replies; blocking prevented them from viewing, replying to, retweeting, or liking the President’s tweets while logged into their accounts.
- Plaintiffs (the blocked users and the Knight First Amendment Institute) sued, claiming the blocks were viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment; the District Court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs.
- The government conceded the account is not independent of the presidency but argued that the act of blocking was private conduct or, alternatively, that the account’s interactive space is not a public forum or is government speech.
- The Second Circuit held (affirming the district court) that the Account’s interactive features constitute a public forum controlled by the government and that blocking the plaintiffs based on viewpoint violated the First Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Trump acted as a government actor when blocking users | Trump used the account for official purposes; blocking is official action | Blocking is a private act available to any user; account remains private | Held: Government actor — account used and presented as presidential; control amounts to state action |
| Whether the account’s interactive space is a public forum | Interactive features (replies, retweets, likes) were opened to the public and compatible with expression | Account is private property or merely a platform for Trump’s speech, not a public forum | Held: Public forum — opened for indiscriminate public use and compatible with expressive activity |
| Whether blocking plaintiffs violated the First Amendment | Blocking excluded and burdened plaintiffs’ speech and participation in public conversation | Blocking did not prohibit speech — plaintiffs can use workarounds or post elsewhere | Held: Violation — blocking was viewpoint discrimination and burdens speech; workarounds insufficient |
| Whether replies/interactive content are government speech | Plaintiffs: replies are private speech of individual users, not government speech | Government: if account is government-controlled, interactive content is government speech | Held: Not government speech — replies/retweets/likes are authored by private users; treating them as government speech would permit viewpoint suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017) (social media use is protected First Amendment activity)
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995) (forum principles apply to metaphysical forums)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (framework for identifying a public forum and government intent)
- Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (opening a forum for indiscriminate public use creates a public forum)
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (viewpoint discrimination prohibited in public forums)
- Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) (government speech doctrine and caution about misuse)
- Minnesota State Bd. for Cmty. Colls. v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984) (no constitutional right to force government to listen)
- Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011) (burdens on speech receive the same scrutiny as bans)