The court called for the case to be dismissed, as Trump is no longer in office and Twitter has blocked him from the platform. Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the decision in light of Trump no longer being president, but the conservative jurist illustrated the complexity of the matter given that Trump ultimately did not have full control over his own account.
Join BJL on WhatsApp Status: Click here to Join BJL status for engagements, births, deals, levayos, events & more
Join BJL on WhatsApp Groups: Click here to Join an official BJL WhatsApp group for breaking news as it happens
"[I]t seems rather odd to say that something is a government forum when a private company has unrestricted authority to do away with it," Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled against Trump, claiming that as president, he used his Twitter account to discuss political matters and therefore the interactive participation of commenting on his tweets was considered a public forum protected by the First Amendment. Blocking those who criticized him, therefore, was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, they had ruled.
Thomas noted that while Trump had the power to block other users, Twitter was then able to block "all Twitter users from interacting with his messages" by banning his account altogether.
"Because unbridled control of the account resided in the hands of a private party, First Amendment doctrine may not have applied to respondents’ complaint of stifled speech," Thomas pointed out, stating that "[w]hether governmental use of private space implicates the First Amendment often depends on the government’s control over that space." Read more at FOX News