Biden v. Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ.

• Decision Date: 05 April 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20-197,20-197
• Citation: Biden v. Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ., 141 S.Ct. 1220(Mem) (2021)
• Parties: Joseph R. BIDEN, Jr., President of the United States, et al. v. KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, et al.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

141 S.Ct. 1220 (Mem)

Joseph R. BIDEN, Jr., President of the United States, et al.

v.KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, et al.

No. 20-197

Supreme Court of the United States.

Decided April 5, 2021

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. , 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).

Justice THOMAS, concurring.

When a person publishes a message on the social media platform Twitter, the platform by default enables others to republish (retweet) the message or respond (reply) to it or other replies in a designated comment thread. The user who generates the original message can manually "block" others from republishing or responding.

Donald Trump, then President of the United States, blocked several users from interacting with his Twitter account. They sued. The Second Circuit held that the comment threads were a "public forum" and that then-President Trump violated the First Amendment by using his control of the Twitter account to block the plaintiffs from accessing the comment threads. Knight First Amdt. Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump , 928 F.3d 226 (2019). But Mr. Trump, it turned out, had only limited control of the account; Twitter has permanently removed the account from the platform.

Because of the change in Presidential administration, the Court correctly vacates the Second Circuit's decision. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. , 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950). I write separately to note that this petition highlights the principal legal difficulty that surrounds digital platforms—namely, that applying old doctrines to new digital platforms is rarely straightforward. Respondents have a point, for example, that some aspects of Mr. Trump's account resemble a constitutionally protected public forum. But it seems rather odd to say that something is a government forum when a private company has unrestricted authority to do away with it.

The disparity between Twitter's control and Mr. Trump's control is stark, to say the least. Mr. Trump blocked several people from interacting with his messages. Twitter barred Mr. Trump not only from interacting with a few users, but removed him from the entire platform, thus barring all Twitter users from interacting with his messages.¹ Under its terms of service, Twitter can remove any person from the platform—including the President of the United States—"at any time for any or no reason." Twitter Inc., User Agreement (effective June 18, 2020).

This is not the first or only case to raise issues about digital platforms. While this case involves a suit against a public official, the Court properly rejects today a separate petition alleging that digital platforms, not individuals on those platforms, violated public accommodations laws, the First Amendment, and antitrust laws. Pet. for Cert., O. T. 2020, No. 20–969. The petitions highlight two important facts. Today's digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors. Also unprecedented, however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties. We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms.

I

On the surface, some aspects of Mr. Trump's Twitter account resembled a public forum. A designated public forum is "property that the State has opened for expressive activity by part or all of the public." International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee , 505 U.S. 672, 678, 112 S.Ct. 2701, 120 L.Ed.2d 541 (1992). Mr. Trump often used the account to speak in his official capacity. And, as a governmental official, he chose to make the comment threads on his account publicly accessible, allowing any Twitter user—other than those whom he blocked—to respond to his posts.

Yet, the Second Circuit's conclusion that Mr. Trump's Twitter account was a public forum is in tension with, among other things, our frequent description of public forums as "government-controlled spaces." Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky , 585 U.S. ––––, ––––, 138 S.Ct. 1876, 1885, 201 L.Ed.2d 201 (2018) ; accord, Pleasant Grove City v. Summum , 555 U.S. 460, 469, 129 S.Ct. 1125, 172 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009) ("government property and ... government programs"); Arkansas Ed. Television Comm'n v. Forbes , 523 U.S. 666, 677, 118 S.Ct. 1633, 140 L.Ed.2d 875 (1998) ("government properties"). Any control Mr. Trump exercised over the account greatly paled in comparison to Twitter's authority, dictated in its terms of service, to remove the account "at any time for any or no reason." Twitter exercised its authority to do exactly that.

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. See Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck , 587 U.S. ––––, ––––, 139 S.Ct. 1921, 1944, 204 L.Ed.2d 405 (2019) (a "private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment"). Whether governmental use of private space implicates the First Amendment often depends on the government's control over that space. For example, a government agency that leases a conference room in a hotel to hold a public hearing about a proposed regulation cannot kick participants out of the hotel simply because they express concerns about the new regulation. See Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad , 420 U.S. 546, 547, 555, 95 S.Ct. 1239, 43 L.Ed.2d 448 (1975). But government officials who informally gather with constituents in a hotel bar can ask the hotel to remove a pesky patron who elbows into the gathering to loudly voice his views. The difference is that the government controls the space in the first scenario, the hotel, in the latter. Where, as here, private parties control the avenues for speech, our law has typically addressed concerns about stifled speech through other legal doctrines, which may have a secondary effect on the application of the First Amendment.

A

If part of the problem is private, concentrated control over online content and platforms available to the public, then part of the solution may be found in doctrines that limit the right of a private company to exclude. Historically, at least two legal doctrines limited a company's right to exclude.

First, our legal system and its British predecessor have long subjected certain businesses, known as common carriers, to special regulations, including a general requirement to serve all comers. Candeub, Bargaining for Free Speech: Common Carriage, Network Neutrality, and Section 230, 22 Yale J. L. & Tech. 391, 398–403 (2020) (Candeub); see also Burdick, The Origin of the Peculiar Duties of Public Service Companies, Pt. 1, 11 Colum. L. Rev. 514 (1911). Justifications for these regulations have varied. Some scholars have argued that common-carrier regulations are justified only when a carrier possesses substantial market power. Candeub 404. Others have said that no substantial market power is needed so long as the company holds itself out as open to the public. Ibid. ; see also Ingate v. Christie , 3 Car. & K. 61, 63, 175 Eng. Rep. 463, 464 (N. P. 1850) ("[A] person [who] holds himself out to carry goods for everyone as a business ... is a common carrier"). And this Court long ago suggested that regulations like those placed on common carriers may be justified, even for industries not historically recognized as common carriers, when "a business, by circumstances and its nature, ... rise[s] from private to be of public concern." See German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Lewis , 233 U.S. 389, 411, 34 S.Ct. 612, 58 L.Ed. 1011 (1914) (affirming state regulation of fire insurance rates). At that point, a company's "property is but its instrument, the means of rendering the service which has become of public interest." Id., at 408, 34 S.Ct. 612.

This latter definition of course is hardly helpful, for most things can be described as "of public interest." But whatever may be said of other industries, there is clear historical precedent for regulating transportation and communications networks in a similar manner as traditional common carriers. Candeub 398–405. Telegraphs, for example, because they "resemble[d] railroad companies and other common carriers," were "bound to serve all customers alike, without discrimination." Primrose v. Western Union Telegraph Co. , 154 U.S. 1, 14, 14 S.Ct. 1098, 38 L.Ed. 883 (1894).²

In exchange for regulating transportation and communication industries, governments—both State and Federal—have sometimes given common carriers special government favors. Candeub 402–407. For example, governments have tied restrictions on a carrier's ability to reject clients to "immunity from certain types of suits"³ or to regulations that make it more difficult for other companies to compete with the carrier (such as franchise licenses). Ibid. By giving these companies special privileges, governments place them into a category distinct from other companies and closer to some functions, like the postal service, that the State has traditionally undertaken.

Second, governments have limited a company's right to exclude when that company is a public accommodation. This concept—related to common-carrier law—applies to companies that hold themselves out to the public but do not "carry" freight, passengers, or communications. See, e.g., Civil Rights Cases , 109 U.S. 3, 41–43, 3 S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883) (HARLAN, J., dissenting) (discussing places of public amusement). It also applies regardless of the company's market power. See, e.g., 78 Stat. 243, 42 U.S. C. § 2000a(a).

B

Internet platforms of course have their own First Amendment interests, but regulations that might affect...