Rutenburg v. Twitter, Inc.

Background

Maria Rutenburg sued Twitter, Inc. over Twitter’s decisions to delete, remove, or label certain tweets from former President Donald Trump’s account and to suspend and permanently remove that account. Rutenburg asserted one claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, alleging violations of her rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The court had previously denied Rutenburg’s motion for a temporary restraining order. It then ordered the parties to address whether the case should be dismissed because Twitter was a private company rather than a government actor.

The Parties’ Positions

Rutenburg argued that Twitter’s conduct constituted “state action,” meaning conduct sufficiently connected to the government to support a constitutional claim. She pointed to an alleged delegation of authority from former President Trump and argued that Twitter operated what she described as a public forum.

Twitter argued that it was a private, non-state actor and therefore could not be held liable under § 1983 for violating constitutional rights.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that § 1983 provides a remedy for deprivation of federal rights only when the challenged conduct is fairly attributable to the state and is undertaken under color of state law. The court identified two requirements: the defendant must have exercised a right or privilege created by the state, and the defendant must be a person who may fairly be treated as a state actor.

The court found that Rutenburg did not allege that Twitter exercised any state-created right or privilege when it restricted access to Trump’s tweets and account. The complaint instead described Twitter’s use of its own technical systems to disable, remove, and restrict tweets and accounts. The court found no connection between those actions and the exercise of sovereign state authority.

The court also found that Twitter was a private company and that operating a social-media platform, hosting speech, or administering Trump’s account did not transform Twitter into a state actor. The court rejected Rutenburg’s reliance on decisions addressing government officials’ use of Twitter, explaining that those decisions involved actual state actors and did not establish liability for a private company in similar circumstances.

Disposition

The court dismissed this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It directed the clerk to close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.