Rock The Vote v. Trump

Background

Rock The Vote and other organizations involved in voter registration, voter education, voter mobilization, and advocacy concerning online misinformation sued Donald J. Trump and other defendants. They challenged Executive Order 13,925, titled the “Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship.” The order expressed concern about alleged political bias by online platforms and directed federal agencies to pursue several actions, including asking the Federal Communications Commission to consider rules narrowing the platforms’ immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, proposing legislation to Congress, reviewing federal advertising spending on social-media platforms, and considering possible enforcement involving deceptive practices.

The plaintiffs alleged that the order was a content-based speech regulation and retaliation for Twitter’s decision to place a fact-checking notice on one of President Trump’s tweets. They did not claim that the order directly regulated them. Instead, they alleged that it chilled constitutionally protected speech by platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, which in turn frustrated the plaintiffs’ missions, deprived them of fact-checking information, and forced them to divert resources to combat misinformation.

Motions and legal standards

The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, which is an early order meant to prevent challenged conduct while a case continues. The government moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The government also invoked Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim. The court separately granted plaintiffs’ motion for administrative relief to file a supplemental declaration.

To establish constitutional standing—the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient personal stake in the dispute—a plaintiff must show an actual or imminent injury that is concrete and particularized, caused by the challenged conduct, and likely to be remedied by the requested relief.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged any of the three standing requirements. First, they had not shown a concrete and particularized injury to themselves or to the online platforms. The executive order did not directly regulate or restrict the platforms’ speech. Instead, it directed agencies to take steps that might lead to future rules, legislation, or liability, depending on actions by independent agencies, Congress, and courts. The court found those possible future consequences too speculative.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the order created immediate threats through agency interpretations of Section 230 or possible reductions in federal advertising spending. It found that executive agencies had no formal role in interpreting or enforcing Section 230, and the plaintiffs had not provided sufficiently specific facts about federal advertising spending or any concrete steps to withhold it.

Second, the court found that the plaintiffs had not shown that the executive order caused the platforms to reduce or stop fact-checking. Twitter had fact-checked only one of four earlier tweets identified by the plaintiffs, and its later conduct appeared consistent with its existing practices. The court also found that Twitter’s notices on later tweets and Facebook’s treatment of a New York Post story did not plausibly show that the order had chilled platform moderation.

Third, the court found that the requested injunction or declaration was unlikely to redress the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. The plaintiffs had not shown that invalidating the order would make the platforms more likely to increase fact-checking or moderation. The court also noted that related processes—including an FCC rulemaking petition and proposed legislation—had already begun and would not necessarily stop if the executive order were enjoined or invalidated.

Disposition

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not established standing. It therefore denied the motion for a preliminary injunction because they had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. It granted defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1). The plaintiffs received 20 days’ leave to amend their complaint. The court did not decide whether the executive order violated the First Amendment.