Attorneys from the Justice Department requested the complete 2nd U.S. on Friday. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan to determine whether an appeals panel of three judges erred in ruling he could not. They said the situation has significant consequences for government officials who are increasingly using social media, especially on private social media accounts.
“If the committee is right, government authorities who deal with issues pertaining to their private accounts public office will run the risk that any action made on that account will be constitutionally scrutinized state action,” the attorneys wrote.
To jointly consider a case, it is uncommon for the 2nd Circuit to grant an application for the 11 judges of appeals who have not reached senior status. The court of appeal usually grants such an application less frequently than once a year.
If the socalled “en banc” hearing application is refused, the case could still be appealed to the United States. High Court. Civil division attorneys from the Justice Department claim the July ruling clashes with previous court precedents and raises a “outstanding importance” issue.
The 2nd Circuit panel found that Trump’s daily statements were overwhelmingly official in nature and observations. It said he breached the First Amendment whenever a critic was blocked to silence a point of view.
In their recent filing, attorneys from the Justice Department insisted that the president’s @realDonaldTrump account was a personal account he established in 2009 long before he became president. They said it should be regarded as any Trump-owned personal property.
“His capacity to exclude others from this personal property is also autonomous from his office. Twitter gave him that power, not the government,” they wrote.The application came in a case brought by Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute. It had sued after criticizing its policies on behalf of seven people blocked by Trump.
Jameel Jaffer, the director of the Institute, said in an email: “The view of the panel was thorough and well-founded, and the arguments put forward by the White House in its request for rehearsal are properly dismissed by the panel. We hope and expect to deny the request.