Facts

Between January 6-8, 2021, Maria Rutenburg attempted to comment on former President Trump's Tweets alleging election fraud. However, in response to the now infamous January 6 incidents in Washington D.C., and at the capitol building, Twitter applied a warning label to three of Trump's Tweets and blocked the interactive features normally available to users allowing them to like, retweet, comment, and reply. Twitter interfered with the ability to comment on these three Tweets and by January 8, 2021, entirely removed all of Trump's Tweets.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: When Twitter prevented Rutenburg from responding to the three Trump Tweets, she was arbitrarily blocked from accessing and speaking on certain topics in a designated public forum.
Recent caselaw has established that when government officials post on social media for official purposes and leave commenting open to the public, a designated public forum is created, triggering constitutional protections for the public when trying to comment and respond. The Second Circuit specifically analyzed Trump's Twitter account and held that the right to comment and interact with other users was protected by the First Amendment. See Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 302 F. Supp. 3d 541, 564 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) aff'd by 928 F. 3d 226, 239 (2d Cir. 2019) denial of reh'g en banc by 953 F.3d 216, 221-22 (2d Cir. 2020) vacated and remanded on other grounds sub nom. Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute.

Twitter is liable as a state actor because its conduct satisfies the government function test of the state action doctrine. Twitter is performing an exclusively governmental function, regulating speech in a designated public forum, and therefore is required to abide by the First Amendment.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied the contentions. Defendant contended it did not deprive Plaintiff of federal rights under Section 1983 because Twitter is not a state actor and is not exercising any sovereign state authority. Defendant additionally contended there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Result

The court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.