Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University et al v. Trump et al

Filing 66

LETTER addressed to Jameel Jaffer, Esq., Katherine Fallow, Esq., Michel Baer, Esq., from Hon. Naomi Reice Buchwald, United States District Judge dated 3/13/2018 re: At oral argument, the government stated that the blocking of Twitter users on the @POTUS and @WhiteHouse accounts would "likely would run afoul of the First Amendment but not because of public forum doctrine" and that "it is probably true that government cannot block individuals purely on the basis of viewpoint from a government account like the @POTUS account," Hr'g Tr. 26:19-20, 29:16-18. We understood the totality of the government's position to be that the First Amendment prohibits the blocking of users from those accounts. We neglected, however, to address the impact of this position on the question currently before the Court-whether such blocking may occur on the @RealDonaldTrump account. Accordingly, we request that the government submit, by March 28, a letter brief of no more than five pages clarifying its position. If the government continues to take the position that users may not be blocked from the @POTUS and @WhiteHouse accounts, it should explain all of the ways in which the First Amendment analysis differs for those two accounts on the one hand and the @RealDonaldTrump account on the other. If the government no longer takes the position that such blocking is unconstitutional, it should explain why such blocking is in fact permissible. The plaintiffs may submit a responsive letter within seven days of the government's letter. (ama)

Case 1:17-cv-05205-NRB Document 66 Filed 03/13/18 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
500 PEARL STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007-1312
NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

212-805-0194

March 13, 2018
Jameel Jaffer, Esq.
Katherine Fallow, Esq.
Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University
475 Riverside Drive, Suite 302
New York, NY 10115

USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:

I

'

DATE FILED: ) \ \')

26\fh

Michael Baer, Esq.
Daniel Halainen, Esq.
United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Knight First Amendment Institute et al. v. Trump et al.
17 Civ. 5205 (NRB)
Dear Counsel:
At oral argument, the government stated that the blocking of Twitter users on the
@POTUS and @Whitellouse accounts would "likely would run afoul of the First Amendment
but not because of public forum doctrine" and that "it is probably true that government cannot
block individuals purely on the basis of viewpoint from a government account like the @POTUS
account," Hr'g Tr. 26: 19-20, 29: 16-18. We understood the totality of the government's position
to be that the First Amendment prohibits the blocking of users from those accounts. We
neglected, however, to address the impact of this position on the question currently before the
Court-whether such blocking may occur on the @RealDonaldTrump account.
Accordingly, we request that the government submit, by March 28, a letter brief of no
more than five pages clarifying its position. If the government continues to take the position that
users may not be blocked from the @POTUS and @WhiteHouse accounts, it should explain all
of the ways in which the First Amendment analysis differs for those two accounts on the one
hand and the @RealDonaldTrump account on the other. If the government no longer takes the
position that such blocking is unconstitutional, it should explain why such blocking is in fact
permissible. The plaintiffs may submit a responsive letter within seven days of the government's
letter.
Very truly yours,

L~b~

Naomi Reice Buchwald
United States District Judge