{{Short description|American freedom of speech legal case}} {{Use American English|date=February 2026}} {{Use mdy dates|date=June 2017}} {{Infobox COA case | name = Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump | 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 |Prior= |appealed to=Trump v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University |subsequent actions = Vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court as [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-197_5ie6.pdf ''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.<ref name=":0">''Knight First Amendment Inst. Columbia v. Trump'', [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2616752692781028544&q=928+F.3d+226&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39 928 F.3d 226] (2nd Cir., 2019).</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/tweets-led-landmark-court-decision-trump/story?id=55407710|title=Here are the 7 tweets that led to landmark court decision against Trump|last=Hutchinson|first=Bill|date=May 24, 2018|newspaper=ABC News}}</ref> 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.<ref name="guardian-11jul2017">{{cite news|last1=Wong|first1=Julia Carrie |author-link=Julia Carrie Wong |title=Twitter users sue Donald Trump for blocking them over critical comments|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/11/twitter-lawsuit-donald-trump-blocking-knight-institute|access-date=July 11, 2017|newspaper=The Guardian|date=July 11, 2017}}</ref><ref name="nytimes-11jul2017">{{cite news |last1=Savage |first1=Charlie |title=Twitter Users Blocked by Trump File Lawsuit |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/trump-twitter-users-lawsuit.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20170712061328/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/trump-twitter-users-lawsuit.html |archive-date=July 12, 2017 |access-date=August 12, 2018 |newspaper=The New York Times |date=July 11, 2017 |url-status=unfit}}</ref><ref name="wapo-11jul2017">{{cite news|last1=Neumeister|first1=Larry|title=Trump sued for blocking some of his critics on Twitter|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/higher-education/trump-sued-for-blocking-some-of-his-critics-on-twitter/2017/07/11/31c63b36-666a-11e7-94ab-5b1f0ff459df_story.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170711225747/https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/higher-education/trump-sued-for-blocking-some-of-his-critics-on-twitter/2017/07/11/31c63b36-666a-11e7-94ab-5b1f0ff459df_story.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=July 11, 2017|access-date=July 11, 2017|agency=Associated Press|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=July 11, 2017}}</ref><ref name=complaint>{{cite web|author=Knight First Amendment Institute|title=Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief|url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6087955/1/knight-first-amendment-institute-at-columbia-university-v-trump/|date=July 11, 2017|access-date=October 25, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Brannon |first1=Valerie C. |title=UPDATE: Sidewalks, Streets, and Tweets: Is Twitter a Public Forum? |date=June 5, 2018 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |location=Washington, DC |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10141.pdf |access-date=14 June 2018}}</ref>
The plaintiffs were represented by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which itself was a plaintiff in the case.<ref name="guardian-11jul2017" /><ref name="nytimes-11jul2017" /><ref name="wapo-11jul2017" /> Though the Knight Institute's Twitter account had not been blocked by Trump,<ref name="time-11jul2017">{{cite news|last1=Abramson|first1=Alana|title=Donald Trump Blocked These People on Twitter. Now They're Suing Him|url=https://time.com/4853515/donald-trump-twitter-blockers-lawsuit/|access-date=July 11, 2017|newspaper=Time|date=July 11, 2017|archive-date=July 11, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170711191432/http://time.com/4853515/donald-trump-twitter-blockers-lawsuit/|url-status=dead}}</ref> the lawsuit argued that they and other followers of the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account "are now deprived of their right to read the speech of the dissenters who have been blocked".<ref name="merc-11jul2017">{{cite news|last1=Sumagaysay|first1=Levi|title=Trump sued by people he blocked on Twitter|url=http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/11/trump-sued-by-people-he-blocked-on-twitter/|access-date=July 11, 2017|newspaper=The Mercury News|date=July 11, 2017}}</ref> The complaint also argued that posts to the @realDonaldTrump account are "official statements".<ref name="forbes-11jul2017">{{cite news|last1=Heilweil|first1=Rebecca|title=Trump Violates First Amendment With Every Twitter User He Blocks, Lawsuit Contends|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccaheilweil1/2017/07/11/trump-violates-first-amendment-with-every-twitter-user-he-blocks-lawsuit-contends/|access-date=July 12, 2017|newspaper=Forbes|date=July 11, 2017}}</ref> The Second Circuit largely agreed, holding that Trump was a state actor for First Amendment purposes because he held out his personal Twitter account as an official account for conducting official business.
However, in 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the decision because per the mootness doctrine, the appeals process would not be completed before the swearing in of Joe Biden as President.<ref>''Biden v. Knight First Amendment Inst. Columbia'', [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15180541866237893807&q=141+S.Ct.+1220&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39 141 S. Ct. 1220] (2021).</ref> In addition, the reasoning of ''Knight'' was clarified by later Supreme Court decisions, particularly ''Lindke v. Freed'', which applied a narrower, two-pronged "actual and purported exercise of authority" test.<ref>''Lindke v. Freed'', [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11567377995442290481&q=Lindke+v.+Freed&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39 144 S.Ct. 756] (2024).</ref>
==Background== At the time on Twitter, blocked users could not see or respond to tweets from the account that blocked them. As of July 2017, the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account had 33.7 million followers.<ref name="eve-12jul2017">{{cite news|last1=Blunden|first1=Mark|title=Donald Trump sued for blocking people on Twitter|url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump-sued-for-blocking-people-on-twitter-a3585896.html|access-date=July 12, 2017|newspaper=Evening Standard|date=July 12, 2017}}</ref><ref name="upi-12jul2017">{{cite news|last1=Pestano|first1=Andrew V.|title=Advocates sue Trump for blocking Twitter users|url=http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/07/12/Advocates-sue-Trump-for-blocking-Twitter-users/2931499854274/|access-date=July 12, 2017|newspaper=UPI|date=July 12, 2017}}</ref> Trump's tweets were often retweeted tens of thousands of times, and Trump frequently used Twitter to make policy statements prior to losing the 2020 presidential election, being suspended from Twitter in January 2021,<ref>{{Cite web|title=Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump|url=https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html|access-date=2021-01-21|website=blog.twitter.com|language=en-us}}</ref> and leaving the White House.<ref name="reuters-11jul2017">{{cite news|last1=Volz|first1=Dustin|title=U.S. free-speech group sues Trump for blocking Twitter users|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-twitter-idUSKBN19W1UZ|access-date=July 12, 2017|newspaper=Reuters|date=July 11, 2017}}</ref> Back in 2017, Spicer had stated that Trump's tweets are considered "official statements by the president of the United States". In July 2017, Trump tweeted that his use of social media is "MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL".<ref name="eve-12jul2017" /><ref name="upi-12jul2017" /> That year, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington had filed a lawsuit in the District of Columbia, alleging violations of the Presidential Records Act for deleting tweets.<ref>''Citizens for Responsibility v. Trump,'' [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6061520791024743188&q=No.+1:17-cv-01228&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39 924 F.3d 602] (D.C. Cir., 2019).</ref>
A month prior to filing its own lawsuit, the Knight Institute had sent a letter to Trump on behalf of two of the blocked Twitter users, asking that they and other blocked users have their accounts unblocked by Trump. The letter argued that Trump's personal Twitter account is a public forum, and that it is therefore unconstitutional to exclude dissenting views. The letter was copied to Spicer, Scavino, and White House counsel Don McGahn.<ref name="nytimes-11jul2017" /><ref name="nytimes-6jun2017">{{cite news|last1=Savage|first1=Charlie|title=Twitter Users Blocked by Trump Seek Reprieve, Citing First Amendment |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/us/politics/trump-twitter-first-amendment.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20170606190139/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/us/politics/trump-twitter-first-amendment.html |archive-date=June 6, 2017 |access-date=August 12, 2018 |newspaper=The New York Times |date=June 6, 2017 |url-status=unfit}}</ref> The Trump administration did not respond to the letter.<ref name="Kastrenakes">{{cite web |last1=Kastrenakes |first1=Jacob |title=Here are all the winners of the 2020 Webby Awards |url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/20/21263445/2020-webby-awards-winners-lil-nas-x-nasa-jon-krasinski |website=The Verge |access-date=22 May 2020 |language=en |date=20 May 2020}}</ref>
== District Court ruling == Oral arguments were heard before Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 9, 2018.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cjr.org/covering_trump/trump_tweets_blocked_first_amendment.php |title=In downtown New York, a First Amendment fight over Trump's tweets |date=March 9, 2018 |work=Columbia Journalism Review |last=Allsop |first=Jon |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180309132841/https://www.cjr.org/covering_trump/trump_tweets_blocked_first_amendment.php |archive-date=March 9, 2018 |access-date=August 12, 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref> On May 23, 2018, Buchwald granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for an injunction against Trump's blocking of Twitter accounts, ruling that such actions are unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. The court ruled that the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account is "a presidential account as opposed to a personal account", and blocking people from it violates their rights to participate in a "designated public forum".<ref name="guardian-23may2018">{{cite news|last1=Wolfson|first1=Sam|title=Donald Trump cannot block anyone on Twitter, court rules|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/23/trump-twitter-block-ruling-court-public-forum-account|access-date=May 24, 2018|newspaper=The Guardian|date=May 23, 2018}}</ref> Buchwald introduced the decision by writing:
<blockquote>This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, “block” a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States. The answer to both questions is no.<ref name="Buchwald decision">{{cite court |litigants=Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Trump |vol= |reporter=No. |opinion=1:17-cv-05205 |pinpoint= |court=S.D.N.Y. |date=May 23, 2018 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6087955/72/knight-first-amendment-institute-at-columbia-university-v-trump/ |accessdate=2018-10-25 |quote=}}</ref></blockquote>
After this ruling, the seven Twitter users that were a part of the lawsuit were unblocked by the managers of Trump's account.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://au.pcmag.com/news/53545/trump-unblocks-some-critics-on-twitter-but-will-fight-ruling|title=Trump Unblocks Some Critics on Twitter, But Will Fight Ruling|first=Michael|last=Kan|date=June 6, 2018|work=PCMag Australia}}</ref> In August 2018, the government filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.<ref name="Government appeal">{{cite web|url=https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Government_Appeal_Brief_Knight_v_Trump.pdf |title=Government appeal |publisher=Knightcolumbia.org |date=2018-08-03 |access-date=2019-09-30}}</ref> Also in August, the Knight First Amendment Institute sent a letter to the Department of Justice requesting that the President comply with the Judge's ruling and unblock a list of 41 additional Twitter users, including Danny Zuker, MoveOn activist Jordan Uhl, health care activist Laura Packard, and journalists like Alex Kotch and Jules Suzdaltsev.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://mashable.com/article/trump-unblocks-twitter-accounts/|title=President Trump forced to unblock dozens of Twitter users after court ruling|first=Matt|last=Binder|date=August 29, 2018|work=Mashable}}</ref> Those users were then unblocked by @realDonaldTrump.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-twitter/trump-unblocks-more-twitter-users-after-u-s-court-ruling-idUSKCN1LE08Q|title=Trump unblocks more Twitter users after U.S. court ruling|first=David|last=Shepardson|date=August 28, 2018|work=Reuters}}</ref> Regardless, the Trump Administration appealed the ruling to the Second Circuit, claiming that the district court had subjected him to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination in violation of his own free speech rights.<ref name="Government appeal" />
== Circuit Court ruling and appeal to U.S. Supreme Court == The Second Circuit issued its decision in July 2019, upholding the district court ruling.<ref name=":0" /><ref name="Appeal decision">[https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Twitter/2019.07.09_Opinion.pdf Appeal decision]</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news |url = https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/trump-twitter-first-amendment.html | title = Trump Can't Block Critics From His Twitter Account, Appeals Court Rules | first = Charlie | last =Savage | date = July 9, 2019 |access-date = July 9, 2019 | work = The New York Times }}</ref><ref name="guardian-9jul2019">{{cite news |title=Trump violated US constitution by blocking critics on Twitter, federal court rules |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/09/trump-twitter-ban-critics-account-federal-court-rules |access-date=July 9, 2019 |work=The Guardian |date=July 9, 2019}}</ref> The government was denied an ''en banc'' review by the full Second Circuit in March 2020.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/donald-trump-violated-first-amendment-twitter-blocking-1203542245/ | title = Donald Trump Violated First Amendment by Blocking Critics on Twitter, Appeals Court Affirms | first= Todd | last= Spangler | date = March 23, 2020 | access-date = March 23, 2020 | work = Variety }}</ref>
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."<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.engadget.com/president-trump-white-house-supreme-court-appeal-twitter-blocking-172537843.html | title = White House calls on Supreme Court to rule on Trump's Twitter blocking | first = Chris | last = Velazco | date = August 20, 2020 | access-date = August 20, 2020 | work = Engadget }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/18/donald-trumps-defeat-may-give-supreme-court-rest-his-suits/6309525002/|title=President Trump's defeat may give Supreme Court a rest from personal, policy lawsuits|first=Richard|last=Wolf|date=November 8, 2020|work=USA Today}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://knightcolumbia.org/documents/626d362988/2021.01.19-Govt-Supplemental-Brief.pdf | title = Government's Supplemental Brief (asking the Supreme Court to vacate 2d Cir. decision) | date = January 19, 2021 }}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite web | url = https://knightcolumbia.org/content/justice-department-abandons-request-that-supreme-court-hear-case-relating-to-trumps-now-defunct-twitter-account | title = Justice Department Abandons Request that Supreme Court Hear Case Relating to Trump's Now-Defunct Twitter Account | date = January 21, 2021 }}</ref>
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.<ref>''Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute'', 141 S.Ct. 1220 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2021).</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_3204.pdf |publisher=Supreme court of the United States |date=5 April 2021}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brodkin |first=Jon |date=2021-04-05 |title=Clarence Thomas blasts Section 230, wants "common-carrier" rules on Twitter |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/clarence-thomas-blasts-section-230-wants-common-carrier-rules-on-twitter/ |access-date=2022-11-11 |website=Ars Technica |language=en-us}}</ref>
== Impact == On the day of the Second Circuit's decision, former New York state representative Dov Hikind and candidate Joey Salads separately sued U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez within New York state federal district court for blocking them from her Twitter account, based on the ruling from the Second Circuit.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://thehill.com/homenews/house/452327-ocasio-cortez-sued-over-twitter-blocks | title = Ocasio-Cortez sued over Twitter blocks | first = John | last= Bowden | date = July 10, 2019 | access-date= July 10, 2019 | work = The Hill }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.npr.org/2019/07/12/741038121/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-is-sued-over-blocking-twitter-followers | title = Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Sued Over Blocking Twitter Followers | first= Sasha | last = Ingber | date = July 12, 2019 | access-date = July 12, 2019 | work = NPR }}</ref> In July 2020, the Knight Institute sued Trump again, on behalf of users who were blocked before Trump's inauguration, or who were not able to identify which tweet prompted Trump to block them.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/31/trump-sued-for-blocking-people-on-twitter-389588|title=Trump sued again for blocking people on Twitter|first=Matthew|last=Choi|date=July 31, 2020|work=Politico}}</ref> The Knight Institute voluntarily dropped that suit after Biden's inauguration.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://knightcolumbia.org/documents/o8dhk62em1 | title = Notice of Voluntary Dismissal | date = April 16, 2021 }}</ref>
In response to critics who questioned whether Twitter should have been considered a public forum, Knight Institute senior attorney Katie Fallow cited a 2017 U.S. Supreme Court decision, ''Packingham v. North Carolina'', in which Justice Anthony Kennedy described social media as "the modern public square" and as one of the most important places for the exchange of views. That ruling, which was unanimous, struck down a North Carolina law that prohibited registered sex offenders from accessing social media sites.<ref name="guardian-11jul2017" /> The ''Knight'' ruling was cited as an important development in the use of social media as a public forum, highlighting the perceived tendency of government officials to block access to those forums or delete past communications.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Terry |first1=Christopher |last2=Schmitz |first2=Stephen |last3=Silberberg |first3=Eliezer Joseph |date=2022 |title=A Cheerleader, a Snapchat, and a Profanity Go to Supreme Court but the Punchline in Mahanoy Isn't Funny |journal=Communications Law & Policy |volume=27 |issue=2 |pages=79–101|doi=10.1080/10811680.2022.2055377 |s2cid=249326630 }}</ref>
The ''Knight'' ruling was cited by a ''rapporteur public'' (advocate general) of a French appellate court<ref>{{Cite journal |last=CHARVIN |first=Baptiste |date=July–August 2023 |title=Services publics et liberté d'expression sur les réseaux sociaux : Du droit américain au droit français |journal=Revue française de droit administratif |volume=39 |issue=4 |page=719 |via=Dalloz Revues}}</ref> when deciding a similar case involving the French Immigration Office (OFII) blocking a Twitter user who had made negative comments about that office.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Landot |first=Éric |date=2023-03-28 |title=Le blocage d'un " follower " d'un réseau social en ligne d'une personne publique… s'avère, selon la CAA de Paris, fort contraint. |url=https://blog.landot-avocats.net/2023/03/28/le-blocage-dun-follower-dun-reseau-social-en-ligne-dune-personne-publique-savere-selon-la-caa-de-paris-fort-contraint-et-cest-toute-la-communication-publiq/ |access-date=2023-09-20 |website=blog.landot-avocats.net |language=fr-FR}}</ref><ref>CAA Paris, 27 mars 2023, 21PA00815</ref>
== Subsequent developments == The U.S. Supreme Court granted ''certiorari'' to two similar cases in the 2023–24 term: ''O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier'' and ''Lindke v. Freed'', which were later combined in the ''Lindke'' proceedings. Both originated with disputes over public officials blocking members of the public from viewing the officials' personal social media accounts.<ref>{{cite web | url =https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/10/30/trump-social-media-first-amendment-supreme-court-lindke-freed/71298641007/ | title = Can a city official 'cancel' a constituent? How a fight over an emoji wound up at the Supreme Court. | first = John | last =Fritze |date = October 30, 2023 | accessdate = October 30, 2023 | work = USA Today }}</ref> The unanimous holding in ''Lindke'' was that speech on the personal accounts of public officials may be deemed state speech if two conditions are met. First, the official must have actual authority to use the personal account to speak on behalf of the government on a particular matter. Second, the official must purport to exercise that authority in the relevant posts. Only when those two factors are met is the personal account considered to provide speech by a state actor, thus prohibiting the official from blocking others or deleting messages critical of that official speech. Otherwise, speech that does not meet this two-pronged test is considered within the private activities of the official who may block or unblock content as desired.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-social-media_n_65f46986e4b08b384f1b1e81 | title = SCOTUS Rules Public Officials Can Sometimes Be Sued For Blocking Critics On Social Media | first = Mark | last =Sherman | agency = Associated Press | date = March 15, 2024 | accessdate = March 15, 2024 | via =Huffington Post }}</ref> Per this modified test established by the ''Lindke'' ruling, the rulin''g'' in ''Knight'' may no longer be a useful precedent due to its failure to differentiate Trump's use of Twitter for personal outreach and campaigning as opposed to actual exercises of government authority.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Mathues |first=David |title=How Much Did ''Lindke v. Freed'' Decide? |journal=DRI for Def. |volume=66 |issue=7 |pages=13–17 |date=July–August 2024 |quote=For starters, the Second Circuit's 2019 ''Knight'' decision held that former President Trump's blocking of critics qualified as state action because Trump used the account to communicate with, and gauge the opinions of, the voting public, and because “since he took office, the President has consistently used the account as an important tool of governance and executive outreach.” This rationale looks shaky after ''Lindke'', because “outreach” and public relations are not equivalent to using [actual] state power.}}</ref>
==See also== {{Portal|Freedom of speech|Law|New York (state)|Politics}} * Donald Trump on social media * List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump {{clear}}
==References== {{Reflist|30em}}
Category:2019 in United States case law Category:Donald Trump litigation Category:Donald Trump and social media Category:X (social network) controversies Category:United States First Amendment case law Category:United States District Court for the Southern District of New York cases Category:United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit cases Category:Twitter, Inc. litigation