The Supreme Court is throwing controversy over Trump’s ban on critics on Twitter
To block his Twitter detractors, ending the fight against Mr Trump’s Twitter account ending as he is no longer in office and has been banned from the platform.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision from the U.S. Supreme Court of Appeal representing the former president and sent the case to a lower court with orders to dismiss it as a riot.
The New York-based Circuit 2 found that Mr. Trump’s decision to block seven users from connecting to his Twitter account was unconstitutional, as the space surrounding the former president’s account was a designated public forum.
In view of the court’s decision to dismiss the case, Judge Clarence Thomas said the dispute “poses a serious legal dilemma surrounding digital communication platforms – that is, applying old doctrines to new digital platforms is rarely understood.”
“As Twitter makes it clear, the right to discontinue speaking lies in the hands of private digital forums,” wrote Thomas. “The importance of that jurisdiction for the purpose of the initial amendment and how the power may be legally transformed raises interesting and important questions. This request, unfortunately, does not give us an opportunity to address it.”
Mr. Trump created his Twitter account in 2009 and garnered more than 88 million followers. During his presidency, Mr. Trump used the forum to voice his grievances and announced the official policies of his administration and workers’ reforms. Twitter, however, permanently blocked Mr Trump from the platform following an incident on January 6 at the U.S. Capitol.
The state court in New York has ruled in favor of the users, finding that the ban on their accounts is unconstitutional. Circuit 2 reaffirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that Mr. Trump’s use of the account during his presidency was “public” rather than “private”, as his tweets often included official news.
When asking the Supreme Court to resolve the dispute, the Department of Justice challenged the decision that the “novel” of the Second Circuit “would jeopardize the ability of public officials – from the president of the United States to the city council – to post their accounts on social media. hate speech without the slightest hint of legalism. “
“Ignoring the critical differences between the president’s (sometimes) official statements on Twitter and his constant decision to block respondents from his account, the view blurs the line between government action and private conduct – despite the court’s repeated and recent advice on how to use the First Amendment, “Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Wall told the Supreme Court.
The Department of Justice, however, asked the Supreme Court in January to dismiss the case as a riot, recognizing that Mr Trump had been sued in his official capacity and would resign.