Lawsuit
Knight Institute v. Trump
A lawsuit challenging President Trump's blocking of critics on Twitter
On July 11, 2017, the Knight Institute filed a lawsuit in federal court against President Trump and his aides for blocking seven people from the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account based on their criticism of his presidency and policies.
The lawsuit maintains that the @realDonaldTrump account is a “public forum” under the First Amendment, from which the government may not exclude people based simply on their views. It also claims that the White House is violating the seven individual plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to petition their government, and that by purging critics from the @realDonaldTrump account, the White House is depriving those who remain in the public forum the opportunity to hear critical voices.
Decided on July 9, 2019, and petition for rehearing denied on March 23, 2020. In a 3–0 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's holding that President Trump's practice of blocking critics from his Twitter account violates the First Amendment. The court denied rehearing en banc by a vote of 7–2.
On July 31, 2020, the Knight Institute filed a second lawsuit in federal court against President Trump and his staff for continuing to block critics from the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account.
Status: On April 5, 2021, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment and instructed the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to dismiss the case as moot.
Case Information: Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-5205 (S.D.N.Y.), No. 18-1691 (2d Cir.), No. 20-197 (Supreme Court).
Featured
Deep Dive
Official Censorship Should Have No Place in the Digital Public Square
Courts are barring public officials from blocking critics from their social media accounts.
Press Statements
-
Supreme Court Ends Long-Running Lawsuit Over Trump’s Now-Defunct Twitter Account
-
Justice Department Abandons Request that Supreme Court Hear Case Relating to Trump’s Now-Defunct Twitter Account
-
Knight Institute Comments on Permanent Suspension of President Trump’s Twitter Account
-
White House Asks Supreme Court to Review Ruling that the President Violated First Amendment by Blocking Critics on Twitter
-
Appeals Court Affirms that First Amendment Bars the President from Blocking Critics on Twitter
-
Knight Institute Responds to Lawsuits Filed Against Rep. Ocasio-Cortez for Blocking Critics on Twitter
Analysis
-
When It Comes to Social Media Blocking, Campaign Accounts are Different
By Alyssa Morones & Katie Fallow -
Institute’s Krent Assesses Future of Cases Involving Social Media Blocking at Cooley Law School Symposium
-
Podcast Features Institute’s Jaffer, Krishnan on Trump, Clearview, and the Future of First Amendment
By A. Adam Glenn -
Official Censorship Should Have No Place in the Digital Public Square
By Jameel Jaffer & Katie Fallow
Legal Filings
Click to highlight response chains
-
KEY DOCUMENTS
-
Supreme Court
-
Opinion (vacating judgment)
-
Response Brief of Respondent (Knight Institute)
-
Supplemental Brief of Petitioners (Government) (asking the Supreme Court to vacate 2d Cir. decision)
-
Reply Brief of Petitioners (Government)
-
Brief of Respondent (Knight Institute)
-
Government's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
-
-
2d Cir.
-
Order (denying en banc petition)
-
Plaintiffs' Opposition
-
Government's Petition for Rehearing en banc
-
Opinion (holding blocking unconstitutional)
-
Plaintiffs' Rule 28(j) Letter re: Halleck
-
Government's Rule 28(j) Letter re: Halleck
-
Government's Rule 28(j) Response Letter re: Davison v. Randall
-
Plaintiffs' Rule 28(j) Letter re: Davison v. Randall
-
Government's Reply
-
Plaintiffs' Response
-
Amicus Briefs
-
First Amendment Scholars
-
Electronic Frontier Foundation
-
Coolidge-Reagan Foundation (in support of the government)
-
Internet Association (in support of neither party)
-
Government's Opening Brief
-
Appendix (1 of 2)
-
Appendix (2 of 2)
-
Special Appendix
-
-
S.D.N.Y.
-
Plaintiffs' Letter re: Additional Blocked Twitter Users
-
Plaintiffs' Letter re: Additional Blocked Twitter Users
-
Plaintiffs' Letter re: Additional Blocked Twitter Users
-
Plaintiffs' Letter re: Additional Blocked Twitter Users
-
Plaintiffs' Letter re: Additional Blocked Twitter Users
-
Government's Notice of Appeal
-
Opinion (holding blocking unconstitutional)
-
Plaintiffs’ Response Letter
-
Government's Response Letter
-
Court’s Letter Requesting Clarification re: @POTUS and @WhiteHouse Accounts
-
Oral Argument Transcript
-
Government's Response Letter re: Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito
-
Plaintiffs' Letter re: Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito
-
Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito
-
Government’s Response Letter
-
Plaintiffs' Letter re: Government Concession in Fourth Circuit
-
Plaintiffs' Reply
-
Government's Opposition/Reply
-
Amicus Briefs (in support of Plaintiffs)
-
First Amendment Scholars
-
Electronic Frontier Foundation
-
Federal Courts Scholars
-
Plaintiffs' Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
-
Government's Motion for Summary Judgment
-
Notice of Filing of Stipulation Exhibits
-
@realDonaldTrump Tweets and Replies
-
@realDonaldTrump Profile and Header Images
-
@rpbp Tweets and Replies
-
@familyunequal Tweets and Replies
-
@AynRandPaulRyan Tweets and Replies
-
@eugenegu Tweets and Replies
-
@BrandonTXNeely Tweets and Replies
-
@joepabike Tweets and Replies
-
@Pappiness Tweets and Replies
-
Joint Stipulation
-
Joint Letter Attaching Proposed Stipulation
-
Stipulation
-
Joint Letter re: Status of Stipulation
-
Government's Response Letter
-
Plaintiffs' Letter Requesting Pre-Motion Conference
-
Complaint
-
Plaintiffs' Letter to President Trump
-
Related News Coverage
-
President Trump cannot block his critics on Twitter, federal appeals court rules
The Washington Post
-
The Constitution and the President’s Tweets
The New York Times
-
Trump’s Blocking of Twitter Users Is Unconstitutional, Judge Says
The New York Times