Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2020 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentState ActionPublic ForumTwittersocial mediapublic foruminteractive space

Facts

The case arose from the President's use of the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account as a primary vehicle for official communications on matters of public concern. The President and his staff used the account as an official channel of communication, White House staff were involved in drafting and posting tweets, the White House Press Secretary confirmed that the tweets were official statements, and the National Archives required preservation of the tweets as official records. Members of the public could reply to and engage with the President and other users on the account's interactive features. The President blocked certain users whose views he disliked, preventing them from participating in that otherwise open dialogue.

Issue

Whether the President's blocking of users from the interactive features of the @realDonaldTrump account constituted state action and, if so, whether excluding users from that interactive space because of their viewpoints violated the First Amendment. Also at issue was whether the account's interactive space constituted a public forum.

Rule

When a government official uses a social media platform for official purposes and makes its interactive features accessible to the public without limitation, the interactive space can constitute a public forum. In that circumstance, excluding persons from the otherwise open dialogue because they express disfavored views is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The relevant inquiry focuses on how the official uses the account in office, not on whether the account was originally created as personal.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Elena Ruiz became mayor of Albuquerque and continued using an Instagram account she had opened years earlier. After taking office, she and her city communications staff used the account to announce emergency orders, budget proposals, and personnel changes, and city recordkeepers archived the posts as official records. Ruiz then blocked several residents after they criticized her policing policies in the comment threads.

Are Ruiz's blocking decisions most likely attributable to the State for First Amendment purposes?

Explanation. The majority-focused rule is that the critical inquiry is how the official uses the account in office, not whether the account originally began as personal. When a public official uses a social media account in an official capacity as a channel of governance and communication, decisions about access to that account are fairly attributable to the State because the official's character lends the weight of the State to those decisions. The private platform and the account's personal origins do not defeat state action on these facts. (Derived from Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump (n.d.).)