Précédent 1 / 33 Next

18-1691-cv Knight First Amendment Institute, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al. 18‐1691‐cv Knight First Amendment Institute, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 23rd day of March, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, PETER W. HALL, DENNY CHIN, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, MICHAEL H. PARK, Circuit Judges. KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, REBECCA BUCKWALTER, PHILIP COHEN, HOLLY FIGUEROA, EUGENE GU, BRANDON NEELY, JOSEPH PAPP, and NICHOLAS PAPPAS, Plaintiffs‐Appellees, v. No. 18‐1691‐cv DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and DANIEL SCAVINO, WHITE HOUSE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL MEDIA 1

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

● ● ●

Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump (Rehearing)

Case Law

Country

United States

Country Location

Latitude: 39.778231903243785

Longitude: -100.8801256788983

Country Location (Lié Case Law): United States

Decision Date: 23 mars 2020

Case Status: Affaire Résolue

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Dismissed

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Blocking or Filtering of Information
Law or Action Overturned or Deemed Unconstitutional

Keywords

Content Moderation
Filtering and Blocking
Social Media

Judicial Body: Suprême (cour d'appel de dernière instance)

Court Name: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case Number: No. 18‐1691‐cv

Case Summary: The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing a 2019 ruling of the Appellate Court in which confirmed that President Trump’s practice of blocking critics from his Twitter account violated the First Amendment. The Plaintiffs had sued President Donald Trump for blocking individual Plaintiffs from accessing @realDonaldTrump account on the ground of an unconstitutional restriction on their right to access statements reflective of Trump’s views and decisions in his official capacity as President. The Court found that the use of the account by Trump and his communications staff and its interactive features to function as an ‘official vehicle of governance’. Noting that the case was a ‘straightforward application of state action and public forum doctrines, congruent with Supreme Court precedent’, the Court concluded that the use of twitter account by the President amounted to ‘state action’ and the selective exclusion of critics on account of their displeasing comments (viewpoint discrimination) was an ‘egregious form of content discrimination’.

Collection

Columbia

Documents principaux

knight.pdf
English
Télécharger Vue