302 F. Supp. 3d 541
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- @realDonaldTrump, an account presented as registered to President Trump and used for official announcements, is operated with assistance from White House aide Daniel Scavino; tweets from the account have been treated as Presidential records.
- Twitter provides interactive features (replies, retweets, likes) and account controls (mute, block); a blocked user cannot view or directly reply to the blocking account while logged into the blocked account.
- Seven individual plaintiffs replied critically to @realDonaldTrump tweets and were blocked; they allege the blocks prevent them from directly engaging in the account’s interactive space and impose burdensome workarounds.
- Knight First Amendment Institute (organizational plaintiff) follows one blocked plaintiff and seeks access to the direct replies the blocked users would post.
- Plaintiffs sued President Trump and Scavino (official capacity) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; court heard cross-motions for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing: do plaintiffs have Article III standing to sue President/Scavino? | Blocked plaintiffs and Knight Institute suffer concrete, imminent injuries (loss of access to interactive space) traceable to defendants and redressable by unblocking. | Defendants challenged traceability/redressability and sued parties without connection to the alleged conduct. | Yes as to President and Scavino; no standing as to Sanders. Plaintiffs and Knight Institute satisfy injury, causation, redressability. |
| Does First Amendment apply to President's Twitter activity (forum analysis)? | The interactive reply space is controlled by the President/Scavino, is used for public discourse, and is a forum subject to First Amendment rules. | Twitter is private; blocking is a platform feature, and the account origins predate presidency; some account content is government speech. | The interactive space of each tweet is government-controlled but not government speech; it is a designated public forum subject to forum doctrine. |
| Was blocking viewpoint-based censorship of protected speech? | Blocks were imposed because plaintiffs criticized the President; replies are political speech at the core of First Amendment protection. | President has personal First Amendment rights to ignore or select with whom to associate; blocking is akin to private choice and permissible. | Blocking was viewpoint discrimination in a designated public forum and thus unconstitutional. Muting is distinguishable and constitutionally different from blocking. |
| Remedy: injunctive or declaratory relief available against President/Scavino? | Plaintiffs seek unblocking and injunctions; declaratory relief also sought. | Defendants argued courts cannot enjoin the President and relief against him is improper. | Court declined to enter injunction against President (reserved), found injunctive relief could be available against Scavino, but granted declaratory judgment that viewpoint-based blocking violates the First Amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (framework for public-forum analysis and defining the relevant forum)
- Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37 (public-forum categories and access-focus test)
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (viewpoint-discrimination principle and forum metaphysical concept)
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (government-speech doctrine and limits of forum analysis)
- Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, 135 S. Ct. 2239 (government-speech factors for identifying government vs private speech)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (standing: injury-in-fact must be concrete and particularized)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing doctrine: injury, causation, redressability)
- Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (limits on judicial intrusion into presidential functions; no absolute immunity)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (judicial duty to declare the law)