Trump v. Twitter, Inc

Background

Naomi Wolf, former President Donald J. Trump, four other individuals, and the American Conservative Union sued Twitter on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of Twitter users. They alleged that Twitter had removed them from the platform and censored them. The complaint asserted First Amendment claims based on a theory that Twitter’s conduct qualified as state action.

The court had dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim, but allowed plaintiffs to amend. Plaintiffs did not amend, and judgment was entered against them. Plaintiffs then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Wolf’s Request

While the appeal was pending, Wolf asked the district court for an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1. She asked the court to consider whether it would set aside the judgment under Rule 60(b)(2) based on newly discovered evidence. An indicative ruling is a statement about what the district court would do if the appeals court sent the matter back for that purpose, or whether the motion raises a substantial issue.

The court stated that filing the appeal transferred control over the aspects of the case involved in the appeal to the Ninth Circuit. It nevertheless concluded that Wolf’s Rule 62.1 request was procedurally proper.

Mootness Concern

The court focused on mootness as a threshold jurisdictional issue. A claim is moot when, during the litigation, the plaintiff is no longer facing an actual injury that the defendant caused and that a favorable court decision could likely remedy. The court noted that a federal court must determine whether it has jurisdiction and that a live controversy must exist throughout the review process, not only when the lawsuit begins.

Publicly available information suggested that changes in Twitter’s operations and policies might affect Wolf’s claims and her requested relief. The court therefore required Wolf to show why her claims still present a live controversy and whether the injunction, which the opinion identifies as her main requested remedy, remains legally and practically available.

Order

The court ordered Wolf to respond in writing by January 23, 2023. The order did not decide whether her claims were moot, whether the judgment would be set aside, or whether the appeal should succeed.