Trump Can’t Block Critics From Twitter Account, Appeals Court Says

July 9, 2019 by Dan McCue
US President Donald Trump waits outside the West Wing of the White House for the arrival of Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani of Qatar on July 9, 2019 in Washington, D.C. (Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/TNS)

WASHINGTON –  President Donald Trump has been violating the Constitution by blocking his critics’ posts from his Twitter account, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

Earlier this year during oral arguments, Justice Department attorney Jennifer Utrecht argued Trump’s Twitter account was created long before he became president and that he is acting in a private capacity when he blocks individuals.

But the 2nd Circuit didn’t buy that argument, observing that Trump uses his account for “all manner of official purposes” and that he can’t exclude people simply because they disagree with him.

The ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a decision handed down last year by U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, who found the First Amendment requires that Trump allow the public to comment on matters of public concern.

“The irony in all of this is that we write at a time in the history of this nation when the conduct of our government and its officials is subject to wide-open, robust debate” that generates a “level of passion and intensity the likes of which have rarely been seen,” U.S. Circuit Judge Barrington Parker wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.

“This debate, as uncomfortable and as unpleasant as it frequently may be, is nonetheless a good thing,” Parker continued. “In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less.”

The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University sued Trump, Daniel Scavino, the White House director of social media, and former White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders on behalf of seven individuals blocked by Trump after criticizing his policies.

“The President violated the First Amendment when he used the blocking function to exclude the individual plaintiffs because of their disfavored speech,” Parker wrote.

The Manhattan-based appeals court went on to say that ‘While various ‘workarounds’ exist that would allow each of the Individual Plaintiffs to engage with the Account,” creating “burdens to speech as well as outright bans run afoul of the First Amendment.” 

Law

Judge Could Soon Order SC Republicans to Hold 2020 Primary State News
Judge Could Soon Order SC Republicans to Hold 2020 Primary
October 18, 2019
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - A circuit court judge in South Carolina heard more than two hours of oral arguments Friday in a lawsuit challenging the state GOP executive committee's vote last month to forgo a 2020 Republican presidential primary. In the end, Circuit Judge Jocelyn Newman indicated her... Read More

Feds Arrest Fourth Defendant in Campaign Finance Case Involving Giuliani Associates Law
Feds Arrest Fourth Defendant in Campaign Finance Case Involving Giuliani Associates

MIAMI — A self-described former pro golfer from South Florida who was indicted last week on campaign finance charges was arrested by federal authorities on Wednesday. David Correia, who worked with Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, is now in federal custody and will be arraigned Thursday... Read More

State Court Halts Michigan Governor’s Flavored Vaping Ban Health
State Court Halts Michigan Governor’s Flavored Vaping Ban

LANSING, Mich. — A state judge has granted a preliminary injunction to vape shop owners who opposed Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s flavored vaping ban, temporarily stopping the state from enforcing emergency rules banning the sale of the products. The facts of the case weigh “in favor... Read More

Justices to Consider Life-Without-Parole Sentences in D.C. Sniper Case Supreme Court
Justices to Consider Life-Without-Parole Sentences in D.C. Sniper Case
October 15, 2019
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - Do a pair of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court require the resentencing of Lee Boyd Malvo, the surviving assailant in the D.C. sniper case? That's the question the justices will consider when it convenes Wednesday to hear oral arguments in the case Mathena... Read More

Former National Intelligence Director Coats Rejoins Law Firm In The News
Former National Intelligence Director Coats Rejoins Law Firm
October 15, 2019
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON -- Former National Intelligence Director Dan Coats has rejoined the King & Spalding law firm and serves as a senior policy advisor on its D.C.-based national security team. “Our clients around the world benefit from the insight of our team’s many former top government officials,... Read More

Supreme Court to Consider State Role in Prosecuting Immigrants Supreme Court
Supreme Court to Consider State Role in Prosecuting Immigrants
October 15, 2019
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear arguments about whether states can prosecute immigrants who use other people's Social Security numbers to get a job. The case not only has implications for the balance of power between the states and the federal government when... Read More

Straight From The Well
scroll top