United States Court of Appeals

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

1

In the 1

United States Court of Appeals 2

For the Second Circuit 3

4

5

AugustTerm20186

7

No.18‐1691‐cv8

9

KNIGHTFIRSTAMENDMENTINSTITUTEATCOLUMBIAUNIVERSITY,10

REBECCABUCKWALTER,PHILIPCOHEN,HOLLYFIGUEROA,EUGENE11

GU,BRANDONNEELY,JOSEPHPAPP,andNICHOLASPAPPAS,12

13

Plaintiffs‐Appellees,14

15

v.16

17

DONALDJ.TRUMP,PRESIDENTOFTHEUNITEDSTATESandDANIEL18

SCAVINO,WHITEHOUSEDIRECTOROFSOCIALMEDIAANDASSISTANT19

TOTHEPRESIDENT,20

21

Defendants‐Appellants,22

23

SARAHHUCKABEESANDERS,WHITEHOUSEPRESSSECRETARY,24

25

Defendant.

26

27

28

AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt29

fortheSouthernDistrictofNewYork30

No.17Civ.5205(NRB),NaomiR.Buchwald,DistrictJudge,Presiding.31

(Argued:March26,2019;Decided:July9,2019)32

33

34

TheClerkofCourtisrespectfullydirectedtoamendtheofficialcaptionasindicatedabove.

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

2

 Before: PARKER,HALL,andDRONEY,CircuitJudges.1

2

PlaintiffsBuckwalter,Cohen,Figueroa,Gu,Neely,Papp,andPappas3

(“IndividualPlaintiffs”)aresocialmediauserswhowereblockedfromaccessing4

andinteractingwiththeTwitteraccountofPresidentDonaldJ.Trumpbecause5

theyexpressedviewshedisliked.TheKnightFirstAmendmentInstituteat6

ColumbiaUniversityisanorganizationallegingarighttohearthespeechthat7

theIndividualPlaintiffswouldhaveexpressedhadtheynotbeenblocked.The8

PlaintiffssuedPresidentTrumpalongwithcertainWhiteHouseofficials,9

contendingthattheblockingviolatedtheFirstAmendment.TheUnitedStates10

DistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofNewYork(Buchwald,J.)foundthat11

the“interactivespace”intheaccountisapublicforumandthattheexclusion12

fromthatspacewasunconstitutionalviewpointdiscrimination.Weagree,and,13

accordingly,weaffirmthejudgmentoftheDistrictCourt.14

15

AFFIRMED.16

JameelJaffer(KatherineFallow,17

CarolineDeCell,AlexanderAbdo,18

KnightFirstAmendmentInstituteat19

ColumbiaUniversity,NewYork,NY,20

JessicaRingAmunson,TaliR.21

Leinwand,Jenner&Block,Washington,22

D.C.,onthebrief),KnightFirst23

AmendmentInstituteatColumbia24

University,NewYork,NY,forPlaintiffs‐25

Appellees.26

27

JenniferUtrecht,Attorney,Appellate28

Staff,CivilDivision(ScottMcIntosh,29

Attorney,AppellateStaff,onthebrief),30

forChadA.Readler,ActingAssistant31

AttorneyGeneral,HashimM.32

Mooppan,DeputyAssistantAttorney33

General,Washington,D.C.,for34

Defendants‐Appellants.35

36

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

3

DavidGreene,ElectronicFrontier1

Foundation,SanFrancisco,CA,for2

amicuscuriae,ElectronicFrontier3

Foundation,insupportofPlaintiffs‐4

Appellees.5

6

AmyL.Marshak,JoshuaA.Geltzer,7

MaryB.McCord,Institutefor8

ConstitutionalAdvocacyandProtection9

atGeorgetownUniversityLawCenter,10

Washington,D.C.,foramicicuriae,11

AshutoshBhagwat,Erwin12

Chemerinksy,GenevieveLakier,Lyrissa13

Lidsky,HelenNorton,AmandaShanor,14

GeoffreyR.Stone,LaurenceH.Tribe,15

andRebeccaTushnet,insupportof16

Plaintiffs‐Appellees.17

18

DanBacker,Political.LawPLLC,19

Alexandria,VA,foramicuscuriae,20

Coolidge‐ReaganFoundation,insupport21

ofDefendants‐Appellants.22

23

DonaldB.Verrilli,Jr.,ChadI.Golder,24

RachelG.Miller‐Ziegler,Munger,Tolles25

&OlsonLLP,Washington,D.C.,for26

amicuscuriae,InternetAssociation,in27

supportofneitherparty.28

29

30

BARRINGTOND.PARKER,CircuitJudge:31

PresidentDonaldJ.TrumpappealsfromajudgmentoftheUnitedStates32

DistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofNewYork(Buchwald,J.)concluding33

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

4

thatheengagedinunconstitutionalviewpointdiscriminationbyutilizing1

Twitter’s“blocking”functiontolimitcertainusers’accesstohissocialmedia2

account,whichisotherwiseopentothepublicatlarge,becausehedisagrees3

withtheirspeech.Weholdthatheengagedinsuchdiscriminationand,4

consequently,affirmthejudgmentbelow.5

ThesalientissuesinthiscasearisefromthedecisionofthePresidenttouse6

arelativelynewtypeofsocialmediaplatformtoconductofficialbusinessandto7

interactwiththepublic.Wedonotconsiderordecidewhetheranelectedofficial8

violatestheConstitutionbyexcludingpersonsfromawhollyprivatesocial9

mediaaccount.Nordoweconsiderordecidewhetherprivatesocialmedia10

companiesareboundbytheFirstAmendmentwhenpolicingtheirplatforms.11

Wedoconclude,however,thattheFirstAmendmentdoesnotpermitapublic12

officialwhoutilizesasocialmediaaccountforallmannerofofficialpurposesto13

excludepersonsfromanotherwise‐openonlinedialoguebecausetheyexpressed14

viewswithwhichtheofficialdisagrees.

15

Twitterisasocialmediaplatformthatallowsitsuserstoelectronically16

sendmessagesoflimitedlengthtothepublic.Aftercreatinganaccount,auser17

Thefactsinthiscasearenotindisputeasthecasewasresolvedbelowon

stipulatedfacts.

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

5

canposttheirownmessagesontheplatform(referredtoastweeting).Users1

mayalsorespondtothemessagesofothers(replying),republishthemessagesof2

others(retweeting),orconveyapprovaloracknowledgmentofanother’s3

messageby“liking”themessage.Allofauser’stweetsappearonthatuser’s4

continuously‐updated“timeline,”whichisaconvenientmethodofviewingand5

interactingwiththatuser’stweets.6

Whenoneuserrepliestoanotheruser’stweet,a“commentthread”is7

created.Whenviewingatweet,thiscommentthreadappearsbelowtheoriginal8

tweetandincludesboththefirst‐levelreplies(repliestotheoriginaltweet)and9

second‐levelreplies(repliestothefirst‐levelreplies).Thecommentthreads10

“reflectmultipleoverlapping‘conversations’amongandacrossgroupsofusers”11

andarea“largepart”ofwhatmakesTwittera“‘social’mediaplatform.”App’x12

at50.13

Theplatformalsoallowsuserstodirectlyinteractwitheachother.For14

example,UserAcan“mention”UserBinUserA’stweet,promptinga15

notificationtoUserBthatheorshehasbeenmentionedinatweet.Twitterusers16

canalso“follow”oneanother.IfUserAfollowsUserB,thenallofUserB’s17

tweetsappearinUserA’s“feed,”whichisacontinuously‐updateddisplayof18

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

6

contentmostlyfromaccountsthatUserAhaschosentofollow.Conversely,1

UserAcan“block”UserB.ThispreventsUserBfromseeingUserA’stimeline2

oranyofUserA’stweets.UserB,ifblockedbyUserA,isunabletoreplyto,3

retweet,orlikeanyofUserA’stweets.Similarly,UserAwillnotseeanyofUser4

B’stweetsandwillnotbenotifiedifUserBmentionsUserA.

Thedisputein5

thiscaseexclusivelyconcernsthePresident’suseofthisblockingfunction.The6

governmenthasconcededthattheaccountinquestionisnotitself“independent7

of[Trump’s]presidency,”butcontendsthattheactofblockingwasprivate8

conductthatdoesnotimplicatetheFirstAmendment.OralArg.R.at1:00–1:15.9

PresidentTrumpestablishedhisaccount,withthehandle10

@realDonaldTrump,(the“Account”)inMarch2009.Noonedisputesthatbefore11

hebecamePresidenttheAccountwasapurelyprivateoneorthatonceheleaves12

officetheAccountwillpresumablyreverttoitsprivatestatus.Thislitigation13

concernswhattheAccountisnow.SincehisinaugurationinJanuary2017,he14

AllofthesefeaturesarepartoftheplatformsetupbyTwitter,aprivate

company.Useoftheplatformisgovernedbytermsofservicewhichusersagree

towhentheyusetheplatform.SeegenerallyTwitterTermsofService,Twitter,

https://twitter.com/en/tos(lastvisitedJune6,2019).ATwitter

usercannot

choosetohaveanaccountthathasasubsetofthesefeatures.Forexample,auser

cannotobtainfromTwitteranaccountthatprohibitscertainotherusersfrom

blockingthem.NorcanauserobtainfromTwitteranaccountwiththeabilityto

disablethecommentthread.

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

7

hasusedtheAccount,accordingtotheparties,“asachannelforcommunicating1

andinteractingwiththepublicabouthisadministration.”App’xat54.The2

President’stweetsfromtheAccountcanbeviewedbyanymemberofthepublic3

withoutbeingsignedintoaTwitteraccount.However,ifauserhasbeen4

blockedfromtheAccount,theycannotviewtheAccount’stweetswhenlogged5

intotheiraccount.Atthetimeoftheparties’stipulation,theAccounthadmore6

than50millionfollowers.ThePresident’stweetsproduceanextraordinarily7

highlevelofpublicengagement,typicallygeneratingthousandsofreplies,some8

ofwhich,inturn,generatehundredsofthousandsofadditionalreplies.The9

PresidenthasnotgenerallysoughttolimitwhocanfollowtheAccount,norhas10

hesoughttolimitthekindofspeechthatuserscanpostinreplytohistweets.11

ThepublicpresentationoftheAccountandthewebpageassociatedwithit12

bearallthetrappingsofanofficial,state‐runaccount.Thepageisregisteredto13

DonaldJ.Trump“45

PresidentoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,Washington14

D.C.”Id.at54‐55.TheheaderphotographsoftheAccountshowthePresident15

engagedintheperformanceofhisofficialdutiessuchassigningexecutive16

orders,deliveringremarksattheWhiteHouse,andmeetingwiththePope,17

headsofstate,andotherforeigndignitaries.18

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

8

ThePresidentandmultiplemembersofhisadministrationhavedescribed1

hisuseoftheAccountasofficial.ThePresidenthasstipulatedthathe,withthe2

assistanceofDefendantDanielScavino,usestheAccountfrequently“to3

announce,describe,anddefendhispolicies;topromotehisAdministration’s4

legislativeagenda;toannounceofficialdecisions;toengagewithforeignpolitical5

leaders;topublicizestatevisits;[and]tochallengemediaorganizationswhose6

coverageofhisAdministrationhebelievestobeunfair.”Id.at56.InJune2017,7

then‐WhiteHousePressSecretarySeanSpicerstatedatapressconferencethat8

PresidentTrump’stweetsshouldbeconsidered“officialstatementsbythe9

PresidentoftheUnitedStates.”Id.at55‐56.InJune2017,theWhiteHouse10

respondedtoarequestforofficialWhiteHouserecordsfromtheHouse11

PermanentSelectCommitteeonIntelligencebyreferringtheCommitteetoa12

statementmadebythePresidentonTwitter.13

Moreover,theAccountisoneoftheWhiteHouse’smainvehiclesfor14

conductingofficialbusiness.ThePresidentoperatestheAccountwiththe15

assistanceofdefendantDanielScavino,theWhiteHouseDirectorofSocial16

MediaandAssistanttothePresident.ThePresidentandhisaideshave17

characterizedtweetsfromtheAccountasofficialstatementsofthePresident.For18

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

9

example,thePresidentusedtheAccounttoannouncethenominationof1

ChristopherWrayasFBIdirectorandtoannouncetheadministration’sbanon2

transgenderindividualsservinginthemilitary.ThePresidentusedtheAccount3

tofirstannouncethathehadfiredChiefofStaffReincePriebusandreplacedhim4

withGeneralJohnKelly.PresidentTrumpalsousedtheAccounttoinformthe5

publicabouthisdiscussionswiththeSouthKoreanpresidentconcerningNorth6

Korea’snuclearprogramandabouthisdecisiontosellsophisticatedmilitary7

hardwaretoJapanandSouthKorea.8

Finally,wenotethattheNationalArchives,theagencyofgovernment9

responsibleformaintainingthegovernment’srecords,hasconcludedthatthe10

President’stweetsareofficialrecords.ThePresidentialRecordsActof197811

establishedpublicownershipofthePresident’sofficialrecords.44U.S.C.§2202.12

UnderthatAct,“Presidentialrecords”includedocumentarymaterialscreatedby13

thePresident“inthecourseofconductingactivitieswhichrelatetoorhavean14

effectuponthecarryingoutoftheconstitutional,statutoryorotherofficialor15

ceremonialdutiesofthePresident.”Id.§2201.Thestatuteauthorizesthe16

ArchivistoftheUnitedStatesto“maintainandpreservePresidentialrecordson17

behalfofthePresident,includingrecordsindigitalorelectronicform.”Id.§18

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

10

2203.Accordingly,theNationalArchivesandRecordsAdministrationhas1

advisedtheWhiteHousethatthePresident’stweetsare“officialrecordsthat2

mustbepreservedunderthePresidentialRecordsAct.”App’xat57.3

InMayandJuneof2017,thePresidentblockedeachoftheIndividual4

Plaintiffs(butnottheKnightFirstAmendmentInstitute)fromtheAccount.The5

governmentconcedesthateachofthemwasblockedafterpostingrepliesin6

whichtheycriticizedthePresidentorhispoliciesandthattheywereblockedasa7

resultoftheircriticism.Thegovernmentalsoconcedesthatbecausetheywere8

blockedtheyareunabletoviewthePresident’stweets,todirectlyreplytothese9

tweets,ortousethe@realDonaldTrumpwebpagetoviewthecommentthreads10

associatedwiththePresident’stweets.11

TheIndividualPlaintiffsfurthercontendthattheirinabilitytoview,12

retweet,andreplytothePresident’stweetslimitstheirabilitytoparticipatewith13

othermembersofthepublicinthecommentthreadsthatappearbelowthe14

President’stweets.Thepartiesagreethat,withoutthecontextofthePresident’s15

originaltweets(whichtheIndividualPlaintiffsareunabletoviewwhenlogged16

intotheiraccounts),itismoredifficulttofollowtheconversationsoccurringin17

thecommentthreads.Inaddition,thepartieshavestipulatedthatasa18

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

11

consequenceoftheirhavingbeenblocked,theIndividualPlaintiffsareburdened1

intheirabilitytoviewordirectlyreplytothePresident’stweets,andto2

participateinthecommentthreadsassociatedwiththePresident’stweets.3

Whilevarious“workarounds”existthatwouldalloweachofthe4

IndividualPlaintiffstoengagewiththeAccount,theycontendthateachis5

burdensome.Forexample,blockeduserswhowishtoparticipateinthe6

commentthreadofablockinguser’stweetcouldlogoutoftheiraccounts,7

identifyafirst‐levelreplytowhichtheywouldliketorespond,logbackinto8

theiraccounts,locatethefirst‐levelreplyontheauthor’stimeline,andthenpost9

amessageinreply.Theblockedusers’messageswouldappearinthecomment10

threadoftheblockinguser’stweet,althoughtheblockinguserwouldbeunable11

toseeit.BlockeduserscouldalsocreateanewTwitteraccount.Alternatively,12

blockeduserscouldlogoutoftheiraccounts,navigatetotheblockinguser’s13

timeline,takeascreenshotoftheblockinguser’stweet,thenlogbackintotheir14

ownaccountsandpostthatscreenshotalongwiththeirowncommentary.15

InJuly2017,theIndividualPlaintiffsandtheKnightInstitutesuedDonald16

Trump,DanielScavino,andtwootherWhiteHousestaffmembersallegingthat17

blockingthemfromtheAccountviolatedtheFirstAmendment.Theparties18

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

12

cross‐movedbelowforsummaryjudgment.TheDistrictCourtgranted1

summaryjudgmentinfavoroftheplaintiffsandenteredadeclaratoryjudgment2

that“theblockingoftheindividualplaintiffsfromthe[Account]becauseoftheir3

expressedpoliticalviewsviolatestheFirstAmendment.”KnightFirst4

AmendmentInst.atColumbiaUniv.v.Trump,302F.Supp.3d541,579(S.D.N.Y.5

2018).TheDistrictCourtheldthatthe“interactivespace”associatedwitheach6

tweetconstitutedapublicforumforFirstAmendmentpurposesbecauseitwasa7

forum“inwhichotherusersmaydirectlyinteractwiththecontentofthetweets8

by...replyingto,retweetingorlikingthetweet.”Id.at566.TheCourtreasoned9

that:(1)“therecanbenoserioussuggestionthattheinteractivespaceis10

incompatiblewithexpressiveactivity,”and(2)thePresidentandhisstaffhold11

theAccountopen,withoutrestriction,tothepublicatlargeonabroadly‐12

accessiblesocialmediaplatform.Id.at574‐75.Astothegovernmentcontrol13

requirementofthepublicforumanalysis,thecourtfoundthat“thePresident14

presentsthe@realDonaldTrumpaccountasbeingapresidentialaccountas15

opposedtoapersonalaccountand...usestheaccounttotakeactionsthatcan16

betakenonlybythePresidentasPresident.”Id.at567.Thecourtconcludedthat17

“becausethePresidentandScavinousethe@realDonaldTrumpaccountfor18

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

13

governmentalfunctions”theyexercisegovernmentcontrolovertherelevant1

aspectsoftheAccount,includingtheblockingfunction.Id.at569.Thecourtalso2

rejectedtheideathatspeechwithintheinteractivespaceontheplatformis3

governmentspeechnotsubjecttoFirstAmendmentrestrictions,concludingthat4

“repliestothePresident’stweetsremaintheprivatespeechofthereplyinguser.”5

Id.at572.6

Afterconcludingthatthedefendantshadcreatedapublicforuminthe7

interactivespaceoftheAccount,thecourtconcludedthat,byblockingthe8

IndividualPlaintiffsbecauseoftheirexpressedpoliticalviews,thegovernment9

hadengagedinviewpointdiscrimination.Id.at577.Finally,thecourtheldthat10

theblockingoftheIndividualPlaintiffsviolatedtheKnightInstitute’srightto11

readtherepliesoftheIndividualPlaintiffswhichtheycannotpostbecausethey12

areblocked.Id.at563‐64.

13

TheDistrictCourtconcludedthatallplaintiffshadstandingtosue,aconclusion

thegovernmentdoesnotchallengeonthisappealandwithwhichweagree.

AftertheDistrictCourtgranteddeclaratoryrelief,thedefendantsunblockedthe

IndividualPlaintiffsfromtheAccount.Thisdoesnotrenderthecasemoot.

Wallingv.

Helmerich&Payne,323U.S.37,43(1944)(“Voluntarydiscontinuanceof

anallegedillegalactivitydoesnotoperatetoremoveacasefromtheambitof

judicialpower.”).

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

14

ThisCourtreviewsagrantofsummaryjudgmentdenovo,applyingthe1

samestandardsthatgovernedthedistrictcourt’sresolutionofthemotion.2

Summav.HofstraUniv.,708F.3d115,123(2dCir.2013).Allquestionspresented3

onthisappeal,includingquestionsofconstitutionalinterpretation,areonesof4

lawwhichwereviewdenovo.All.forOpenSocʹyIntʹl,Inc.v.UnitedStatesAgency5

forIntʹlDev.,911F.3d104,109(2dCir.2018).Becauseweagreethatinblocking6

theIndividualPlaintiffsthePresidentengagedinprohibitedviewpoint7

discrimination,weaffirm.8

DISCUSSION9

ThePresident’sprimaryargumentinhisbriefisthatwhenheblockedthe10

IndividualPlaintiffs,hewasexercisingcontroloveraprivate,personalaccount.11

Atoralargument,however,thegovernmentconcededthattheAccountisnot12

“independentof[Trump’s]presidency,”choosinginsteadtoargueonlythatthe13

actofblockingwasnotstateaction.OralArg.R.at1:00–1:15.ThePresident14

contendsthattheAccountisexclusivelyavehicleforhisownspeechtowhich15

theIndividualPlaintiffshavenorightofaccessandtowhichtheFirst16

Amendmentdoesnotapply.Secondarily,hearguesthat,inanyevent,the17

AccountisnotapublicforumandthateveniftheAccountwereapublicforum,18

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

15

blockingtheIndividualPlaintiffsdidnotpreventthemfromaccessingtheforum.1

ThePresidentfurtherarguesthat,totheextenttheAccountisgovernment‐2

controlled,postsonitaregovernmentspeechtowhichtheFirstAmendment3

doesnotapply.Wearenotpersuaded.Weconcludethattheevidenceofthe4

officialnatureoftheAccountisoverwhelming.Wealsoconcludethatoncethe5

Presidenthaschosenaplatformandopenedupitsinteractivespacetomillions6

ofusersandparticipants,hemaynotselectivelyexcludethosewhoseviewshe7

disagreeswith.8

I.9

ThePresidentconcedesthatheblockedtheIndividualPlaintiffsbecause10

theypostedtweetsthatcriticizedhimorhispolicies.Healsoconcedesthatsuch11

criticismisprotectedspeech.TheissuethenforthisCourttoresolveiswhether,12

inblockingtheIndividualPlaintiffsfromtheinteractivefeaturesoftheAccount,13

thePresidentactedinagovernmentalcapacityorasaprivatecitizen.14

ThePresidentmaintainsthatTwitterisaprivatelyownedandoperated15

socialmediaplatformthathehasusedsince2009tosharehisopinionson16

popularculture,worldaffairs,andpolitics.SincehebecamePresident,he17

contends,theprivatenatureoftheAccounthasnotchanged.Inhisview,the18

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

16

Accountisnotaspaceownedorcontrolledbythegovernment.Rather,itisa1

platformforhisownprivatespeechandnotonefortheprivateexpressionof2

others.BecausetheAccountisprivate,heargues,FirstAmendmentissuesand3

forumanalysisarenotimplicated.AlthoughTwitterfacilitatesrobustpublic4

debateontheAccount,thePresidentcontendsthatitissimplythemeans5

throughwhichheparticipatesinaforumandnotapublicforuminandofitself.6

NoonedisputesthattheFirstAmendmentrestrictsgovernmentregulation7

ofprivatespeechbutdoesnotregulatepurelyprivatespeech.

If,inblocking,8

thePresidentwereactinginagovernmentalcapacity,thenhemaynot9

discriminatebasedonviewpointamongtheprivatespeechoccurringinthe10

Account’sinteractivespace.Asnoted,thegovernmentarguesfirstthatthe11

AccountisthePresident’sprivatepropertybecauseheopeneditin2009asa12

personalaccountandhewillretainpersonalcontrolovertheAccountafterhis13

presidency.However,thefactthatgovernmentcontroloverpropertyis14

temporary,orthatthegovernmentdoesnot“own”thepropertyinthesensethat15

See,e.g.,Harrisv.Quinn,573U.S.616,629n.4(2014);Locev.TimeWarnerEntmʹt

Advance/NewhousePʹship,191F.3d256,266(2dCir.1999);seealsoPleasantGrove

City,Utahv.Summum,555U.S.460,467(2009);Hartmanv.Moore,547U.S.250,

256(2006)

(statingthat“asageneralmattertheFirstAmendmentprohibits

governmentofficialsfromsubjectinganindividualtoretaliatoryactions...for

speakingout”).

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

17

itholdstitletotheproperty,isnotdeterminativeofwhetherthepropertyis,in1

fact,sufficientlycontrolledbythegovernmenttomakeitaforumforFirst2

Amendmentpurposes.SeeSe.Promotions,Ltd.v.Conrad,420U.S.546,547‐523

(1975)(holdingprivately‐ownedtheaterleasedtoandoperatedbycitywas4

publicforum).

Temporarycontrolbythegovernmentcanstillbecontrolfor5

FirstAmendmentpurposes.6

Thegovernment’scontentionthatthePresident’suseoftheAccount7

duringhispresidencyisprivatefoundersinthefaceoftheuncontestedevidence8

intherecordofsubstantialandpervasivegovernmentinvolvementwith,and9

controlover,theAccount.First,theAccountispresentedbythePresidentand10

theWhiteHousestaffasbelongingto,andoperatedby,thePresident.The11

Accountisregisteredto“DonaldJ.Trump,‘45

PresidentoftheUnitedStatesof12

America,Washington,D.C.’”App’xat54.ThePresidenthasdescribedhisuse13

oftheAccountas“MODERNDAYPRESIDENTIAL.”Id.at55.TheWhite14

SeealsoDenverAreaEduc.TelecommunicationsConsortium,Inc.v.F.C.C.,518U.S.

727,749(1996)(pluralityopinion)(statingthat“publicforumsareplacesthatthe

governmenthasopenedforusebythepublicasaplaceforexpressiveactivity”

(internalquotationmarksomitted));U.S.PostalServ.v.CouncilofGreenburgh

CivicAssociations,453U.S.114,132(considering“questionofwhethera

particularpieceofpersonalorrealpropertyownedorcontrolledbythe

government”isapublicforum(emphasisadded)).

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

18

HousesocialmediadirectorhasdescribedtheAccountasachannelthrough1

which“PresidentDonaldJ.Trump...[c]ommunicat[es]directlywithyou,the2

Americanpeople!”Id.The@WhiteHouseaccount,anundoubtedlyofficial3

Twitteraccountrunbythegovernment,“directsTwitterusersto‘Followforthe4

latestfrom@POTUS@realDonaldTrumpandhisAdministration.”Id.Further,5

the@POTUSaccountfrequentlyrepublishestweetsfromtheAccount.

As6

discussedearlier,accordingtotheNationalArchivesandRecords7

Administration,thePresident’stweetsfromtheAccount“areofficialrecordsthat8

mustbepreservedunderthePresidentialRecordsAct.”Id.at57.9

Second,sincebecomingPresidenthehasusedtheAccountonalmosta10

dailybasis“asachannelforcommunicatingandinteractingwiththepublic11

abouthisadministration.”Id.at54.ThePresidentutilizesWhiteHousestaffto12

posttweetsandtomaintaintheAccount.HeusestheAccounttoannounce13

“mattersrelatedtoofficialgovernmentbusiness,”includinghigh‐levelWhite14

ThePresidentandtheWhiteHouseoperatetwootherTwitteraccounts:

@POTUSand@WhiteHouse.Bothaccountsareofficialgovernmentaccounts.

Thoseaccountsbelongstrictlytothegovernment,inthesensethatthePresident

andmembersoftheWhiteHouseadministrationwillnotretaincontrolover

thoseaccountsuponleavingoffice.The

@POTUSaccountistheofficialaccount

oftheU.S.President.The@WhiteHouseaccountistheofficialaccountforthe

WhiteHouseadministration.

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

19

Houseandcabinet‐levelstaffchangesaswellaschangestomajornational1

policies.Id.at56.HeusestheAccounttoengagewithforeignleadersandto2

announceforeignpolicydecisionsandinitiatives.Finally,heusesthe“like,”3

“retweet,”“reply,”andotherfunctionsoftheAccounttounderstandandto4

evaluatethepublic’sreactiontowhathesaysanddoes.Insum,sincehetook5

office,thePresidenthasconsistentlyusedtheAccountasanimportanttoolof6

governanceandexecutiveoutreach.Forthesereasons,weconcludethatthe7

factorspointingtothepublic,non‐privatenatureoftheAccountandits8

interactivefeaturesareoverwhelming.9

Thegovernment’sresponseisthatthePresidentisnotactinginhisofficial10

capacitywhenheblocksusersbecausethatfunctionisavailabletoallusers,not11

onlytogovernmentofficials.However,thefactthatanyTwitterusercanblock12

anotheraccountdoesnotmeanthatthePresidentsomehowbecomesaprivate13

personwhenhedoesso.BecausethePresident,aswehaveseen,actsinan14

officialcapacitywhenhetweets,weconcludethatheactsinthesamecapacity15

whenheblocksthosewhodisagreewithhim.Here,apublicofficialandhis16

subordinatesholdoutanduseasocialmediaaccountopentothepublicasan17

officialaccountforconductingofficialbusiness.Thataccounthasinteractive18

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

20

featuresopentothepublic,makingpublicinteractionaprominentfeatureofthe1

account.Thesefactorsmeanthattheaccountisnotprivate.Seegenerally2

Rosenbergerv.Rector&VisitorsofUniv.ofVirginia,515U.S.819,830(1995)3

(applyingthesameprinciplesto“metaphysical”forumsastothosethatexistin4

“aspatialorgeographicsense”);seealsoDavisonv.Randall,912F.3d666,680(4th5

Cir.2019)(holdingthatapublicofficialwhousedaFacebookPageasatoolof6

herofficeexercisedstateactionwhenbanningaconstituent);Robinsonv.Hunt7

Cty.,Texas,921F.3d440,447(5thCir.2019)(findingthatagovernmentofficial’s8

actofbanningaconstituentfromanofficialgovernmentsocialmediapagewas9

unconstitutionalviewpointdiscrimination).Accordingly,thePresidentexcluded10

theIndividualPlaintiffsfromgovernment‐controlledpropertywhenheusedthe11

blockingfunctionoftheAccounttoexcludedisfavoredvoices.12

Ofcourse,noteverysocialmediaaccountoperatedbyapublicofficialisa13

governmentaccount.WhetherFirstAmendmentconcernsaretriggeredwhena14

publicofficialuseshisaccountinwaysthatdifferfromthosepresentedonthis15

appealwillinmostinstancesbeafact‐specificinquiry.Theoutcomeofthat16

inquirywillbeinformedbyhowtheofficialdescribesandusestheaccount;to17

whomfeaturesoftheaccountaremadeavailable;andhowothers,including18

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

21

governmentofficialsandagencies,regardandtreattheaccount.Buttheseare1

concernsforothercasesandotherdaysandareoneswearenotrequiredto2

considerorresolveonthisappeal.3

II.4

OnceitisestablishedthatthePresidentisagovernmentactorwithrespect5

tohisuseoftheAccount,viewpointdiscriminationviolatestheFirst6

Amendment.ManhattanCommunityAccessCorp.etal.v.Hallecketal.,587U.S.__7

(2019)(“Whenthegovernmentprovidesaforumforspeech(knownasapublic8

forum),thegovernmentmaybeconstrainedbytheFirstAmendment,meaning9

thatthegovernmentordinarilymaynotexcludespeechorspeakersfromthe10

forumonthebasisofviewpoint....”);seealsoPleasantGrove,555U.S.at469‐7011

(viewpointdiscriminationprohibitedintraditional,designated,andlimited12

publicforums);Cornelius,473U.S.at806(viewpointdiscriminationprohibitedin13

nonpublicforums).14

Thegovernmentmakestworesponses.First,itarguesthattheAccountis15

notapublicforumandthat,evenifitwereapublicforum,theIndividual16

Plaintiffswerenotexcludedfromit.Second,thegovernmentarguesthatthe17

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

22

Account,ifcontrolledbythegovernment,isgovernmentspeechnotsubjectto1

FirstAmendmentrestrictions.2

A.3

Asageneralmatter,socialmediaisentitledtothesameFirstAmendment4

protectionsasotherformsofmedia.Packinghamv.NorthCarolina,137S.Ct.1730,5

1735‐36(2017)(holdingastatestatutepreventingregisteredsexoffendersfrom6

accessingsocialmediasitesinvalidanddescribingsocialmediauseas“protected7

FirstAmendmentactivity”).“[W]hateverthechallengesofapplyingthe8

Constitutiontoever‐advancingtechnology,‘thebasicprinciplesoffreedomof9

speechandthepress,liketheFirstAmendment’scommand,donotvary’whena10

newanddifferentmediumforcommunicationappears.”Brownv.Entm’t11

MerchantsAss’n,564U.S.786,790(2011)(quotingJosephBurstyn,Inc.v.Wilson,12

343U.S.495,503(1952)).Apublicforum,astheSupremeCourthasalsomade13

clear,neednotbe“spatialorgeographic”and“thesameprinciplesare14

applicable”toametaphysicalforum.Rosenberger,515U.S.at830.15

Todeterminewhetherapublicforumhasbeencreated,courtslook“tothe16

policyandpracticeofthegovernment”aswellas“thenatureofthepropertyand17

itscompatibilitywithexpressiveactivitytodiscernthegovernment’sintent.”18

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

23

Cornelius,473U.S.at802.Openinganinstrumentalityofcommunication“for1

indiscriminateusebythegeneralpublic”createsapublicforum.PerryEduc.2

Ass’nv.PerryLocalEducators’Ass’n,460U.S.37,47(1983).TheAccountwas3

intentionallyopenedforpublicdiscussionwhenthePresident,uponassuming4

office,repeatedlyusedtheAccountasanofficialvehicleforgovernanceand5

madeitsinteractivefeaturesaccessibletothepublicwithoutlimitation.Wehold6

thatthisconductcreatedapublicforum.7

IftheAccountisaforum—publicorotherwise—viewpointdiscrimination8

isnotpermitted.Int’lSoc.ForKrishnaConsciousness,Inc.v.Lee,505U.S.672,6799

(1992);seealsoPleasantGrove,555U.S.at469‐70(viewpointdiscrimination10

prohibitedintraditional,designated,andlimitedpublicforums);Cornelius,47311

U.S.at806(viewpointdiscriminationprohibitedinnonpublicforums).A12

blockedaccountispreventedfromviewinganyofthePresident’stweets,13

replyingtothosetweets,retweetingthem,orlikingthem.Replying,retweeting,14

andlikingareallexpressiveconductthatblockinginhibits.Replyingand15

retweetingaremessagesthatauserbroadcasts,and,assuch,undeniablyare16

speech.Likingatweetconveysapprovaloracknowledgmentofatweetandis17

thereforeasymbolicmessagewithexpressivecontent.See,e.g.,W.VirginiaState18

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

24

Bd.ofEduc.v.Barnette,319U.S.624,632‐33(1943)(discussingsymbolsasspeech).1

Significantly,thepartiesagreethatallofthisexpressiveconductis2

communicatedtothethousandsofuserswhointeractwiththeAccount.By3

blockingtheIndividualPlaintiffsandpreventingthemfromviewing,retweeting,4

replyingto,andlikinghistweets,thePresidentexcludedtheIndividualPlaintiffs5

fromapublicforum,somethingtheFirstAmendmentprohibits.6

ThegovernmentdoesnotchallengetheDistrictCourt’sconclusionthatthe7

speechinwhichIndividualPlaintiffsseektoengageisprotectedspeech;instead,8

itarguesthatblockingdidnotbanorburdenanyone’sspeech.SeeKnightFirst9

Amendment,302F.Supp.3dat565.Specifically,thegovernmentcontendsthat10

theIndividualPlaintiffswerenotpreventedfromspeakingbecause“theonly11

materialimpactthatblockinghasontheindividualplaintiffs’abilitytoexpress12

themselvesonTwitteristhatitpreventsthemfromspeakingdirectlytoDonald13

Trumpbyreplyingtohistweetsonthe@realDonaldTrumpwebpage.”14

AppellantsBr.at35.15

Thatassertionisnotwell‐groundedinthefactspresentedtous.The16

governmentiscorrectthattheIndividualPlaintiffshavenorighttorequirethe17

Presidenttolistentotheirspeech.SeeMinnesotaStateBd.forCmty.Collegesv.18

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

25

Knight,465U.S.271,283(1984)(aplaintiffhas“noconstitutionalrighttoforce1

thegovernmenttolistentotheirviews”).However,thespeechrestrictionsat2

issueburdentheIndividualPlaintiffs’abilitytoconverseonTwitterwithothers3

whomaybespeakingtooraboutthePresident.

PresidentTrumpisonlyoneof4

thousandsofrecipientsofthemessagestheIndividualPlaintiffsseekto5

communicate.Whileheiscertainlynotrequiredtolisten,onceheopensupthe6

interactivefeaturesofhisaccounttothepublicatlargeheisnotentitledto7

censorselectedusersbecausetheyexpressviewswithwhichhedisagrees.

8

Thegovernment’sreplyisthattheIndividualPlaintiffsarenotcensored9

becausetheycanengageinvarious“workarounds”suchascreatingnew10

If,forexample,thePresidenthadmerelypreventedtheIndividualPlaintiffs

fromsendinghimdirectmessages,hisargumentwouldhavemoreforce.

ThegovernmentextendsthisargumenttosuggestthattheIndividualPlaintiffs

areclaimingarightto“amplify”theirspeechbybeingabletoreplydirectlyto

thePresident’stweets.Thegovernmentcanchooseto“amplify”thespeechof

certainindividualswithoutviolatingtherightsofothersbychoosingtolistenor



notlisten.SeeMinnesotaStateBd.,465U.S.at288(statingthat“[a]mplificationof

thesortclaimedisinherentingovernment’sfreedomtochooseitsadvisers.A

person’srighttospeakisnotinfringedwhengovernmentsimplyignoresthat

personwhilelisteningtoothers.”).Thatisnotwhatoccurredhere;

the

IndividualPlaintiffswerenotsimplyignoredbythePresident,theirabilityto

speaktotherestofthepublicusersoftheAccountwasburdened.Inanyevent,

thegovernmentisnotpermittedto“amplify”favoredspeechbybanningor

burdeningviewpointswithwhichitdisagrees.

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

26

accounts,loggingouttoviewthePresident’stweets,andusingTwitter’ssearch1

functionstofindtweetsaboutthePresidentpostedbyotheruserswithwhich2

theycanengage.3

Tellingly,thegovernmentconcedesthatthese“workarounds”burdenthe4

IndividualPlaintiffs’speech.SeeApp’x35‐36,66.Andburdenstospeechaswell5

asoutrightbansrunafouloftheFirstAmendment.SeeSorrellv.IMSHealthInc.,6

564U.S.552,566(2011)(statingthatgovernment“maynomoresilence7

unwantedspeechbyburdeningitsutterancethanbycensoringitscontent”);8

UnitedStatesv.PlayboyEntmʹtGrp.,Inc.,529U.S.803,812(2000)(“Thedistinction9

betweenlawsburdeningandlawsbanningspeechisbutamatterofdegree.The10

Government’scontent‐basedburdensmustsatisfythesamerigorousscrutinyas11

itscontent‐basedbans.”).Whenthegovernmenthasdiscriminatedagainsta12

speakerbasedonthespeaker’sviewpoint,theabilitytoengageinotherspeech13

doesnotcurethatconstitutionalshortcoming.ChristianLegalSoc.Chapterofthe14

Univ.ofCalifornia,HastingsColl.oftheLawv.Martinez,561U.S.661,690(2010).15

Similarly,thefactthattheIndividualPlaintiffsretainsomeabilityto“work16

around”theblockingdoesnotcuretheconstitutionalviolation.Neitherdoesthe17

factthattheIndividualPlaintiffscanpostmessageselsewhereonTwitter.18

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

27

Accordingly,weholdthatthePresidentviolatedtheFirstAmendmentwhenhe1

usedtheblockingfunctiontoexcludetheIndividualPlaintiffsbecauseoftheir2

disfavoredspeech.3

B.4

Finally,thegovernmentarguesthattotheextenttheAccountiscontrolled5

bythegovernment,itisgovernmentspeech.Underthegovernmentspeech6

doctrine,“[t]heFreeSpeechClausedoesnotrequiregovernmenttomaintain7

viewpointneutralitywhenitsofficersandemployeesspeak”about8

governmentalendeavors.Matalv.Tam,137S.Ct.1744,1757(2017).For9

example,whenthegovernmentwishestopromoteawareffort,itisnotrequired10

bytheFirstAmendmenttoalsodistributemessagesdiscouragingthateffort.Id.11

at1758;seealsoPleasantGrove,555U.S.at467(“TheFreeSpeechClauserestricts12

governmentregulationofprivatespeech;itdoesnotregulategovernment13

speech.”).14

ItisclearthatifPresidentTrumpwereengagingingovernmentspeech15

whenheblockedtheIndividualPlaintiffs,hewouldnothavebeenviolatingthe16

FirstAmendment.EveryoneconcedesthatthePresident’sinitialtweets17

(meaningthosethatheproduceshimself)aregovernmentspeech.Butthiscase18

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

28

doesnotturnonthePresident’sinitialtweets;itturnsonhissupervisionofthe1

interactivefeaturesoftheAccount.Thegovernmenthasconcededthatthe2

Account“isgenerallyaccessibletothepublicatlargewithoutregardtopolitical3

affiliationoranyotherlimitingcriteria,”andthePresidenthasnotattemptedto4

limittheAccount’sinteractivefeaturetohisownspeech.App’xat55.5

Consideringtheinteractivefeatures,thespeechinquestionisthatof6

multipleindividuals,notjustthePresidentorthatofthegovernment.Whena7

TwitteruserpostsareplytooneofthePresident’stweets,themessageis8

identifiedascomingfromthatuser,notfromthePresident.Thereisnorecord9

evidence,andthegovernmentdoesnotargue,thatthePresidenthasattempted10

toexerciseanycontroloverthemessagesofothers,excepttotheextenthehas11

blockedsomepersonsexpressingviewpointshefindsdistasteful.Thecontentsof12

retweets,replies,likes,andmentionsarecontrolledbytheuserwhogenerates13

themandnotbythePresident,excepttotheextentheattemptstodosoby14

blocking.Accordingly,whilethePresident’stweetscanaccuratelybedescribed15

asgovernmentspeech,theretweets,replies,andlikesofotherusersinresponse16

tohistweetsarenotgovernmentspeechunderanyformulation.TheSupreme17

Courthasdescribedthegovernmentspeechdoctrineas“susceptibleto18

18‐1691‐cv

KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute,etalv.DonaldJ.Trump,etal

29

dangerousmisuse.”Matal,137S.Ct.at1758.Ithasurged“greatcaution”to1

preventthegovernmentfrom“silenc[ing]ormuffl[ing]theexpressionof2

disfavoredviewpoints”undertheguiseofthegovernmentspeechdoctrine.Id.3

ExtensionofthedoctrineinthewayurgedbyPresidentTrumpwouldproduce4

preciselythisresult.5

Theironyinallofthisisthatwewriteatatimeinthehistoryofthisnation6

whentheconductofourgovernmentanditsofficialsissubjecttowide‐open,7

robustdebate.Thisdebateencompassesanextraordinarilybroadrangeofideas8

andviewpointsandgeneratesalevelofpassionandintensitythelikesofwhich9

haverarelybeenseen.Thisdebate,asuncomfortableandasunpleasantasit10

frequentlymaybe,isnonethelessagoodthing.Inresolvingthisappeal,we11

remindthelitigantsandthepublicthatiftheFirstAmendmentmeansanything,12

itmeansthatthebestresponsetodisfavoredspeechonmattersofpublicconcern13

ismorespeech,notless.14

CONCLUSION15

ThejudgmentoftheDistrictCourtisAFFIRMED.16