Trump Can No Longer Block His Haters on Twitter, a Federal Court Rules

Excluding them “constitutes viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment.”

Oliver Contreras/ZUMA

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

President Donald Trump can no longer block critical Twitter users from viewing his tweets, as that practice is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.  

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York wrote in her ruling that the president’s tweets are considered to belong to a “public forum” and that using Twitter’s “block” feature against his antagonists violates the First Amendment. She added: “no government official—including the President—is above the law.”

The government had argued that while Trump’s tweets serve as official administration statements, any blocked user could still access the president’s posts elsewhere. Buchwald agreed, but said that blocking a user with opposing political views still prevented the user from fully interacting with the president’s account—whether it be by retweeting, replying, and so on. She suggested that going forth, the president mute users instead.

“We hold that portions of the @realDonaldTrump account—the ‘interactive space’ where Twitter users may directly engage with the content of the President’s tweets—are properly analyzed under the ‘public forum’ doctrines set forth by the Supreme Court, that such space is a designated public forum, and that the blocking of the plaintiffs based on their political speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment,” Buchwald wrote.

The lawsuit that led to Wednesday’s ruling was filed last July by the Knight First Amendment Institute on behalf of users who had criticized Trump on Twitter and subsequently been blocked from reading his tweets.

“We’re pleased with the court’s decision, which reflects a careful application of core First Amendment principles to government censorship on a new communications platform,” Knight Institute executive director Jameel Jaffer said in a statement. “The president’s practice of blocking critics on Twitter is pernicious and unconstitutional, and we hope this ruling will bring it to an end.”

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest