Supreme Court tosses dispute over Trump blocking critics on Twitter By Melissa Quinn Lawmakers weigh new regulations for social media
Washington The Supreme Court on Monday ordered a dispute over former President Donald Trump s ability to block his critics on Twitter to be tossed out, bringing the battle over Mr. Trump s Twitter account to a close as he is no longer in office and has since been banned from the platform.
The high court vacated a decision from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals against the former president and sent the case back to the lower court with instructions to dismiss it as moot.
In March, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, in which the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) asserted that a California law allowing union organizers entry onto agricultural private property for up to 120 days a year constitutes a “taking” under the U.S. Constitution. For deregulation advocates like PLF, the case presents a new opportunity for the justices to empower the Takings Clause to be a more central constitutional doctrine buffering private property from what it views as overreaching state authority. But it also asks the court, implicitly, if it remains committed to the principle, celebrated by conservative Justices William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia, of “federalism,” that is, devolving power from the federal government to the states. Efforts to empower property rights in the federal courts usurp the states’ rights to determine their own property laws.
Will The Exploitation Of College Athletes Decline Soon? forbes.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from forbes.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
The U.S. Supreme Court turned down Jones’ request to hear his appeal without comment.
Jones’ attorney, Norman Pattis, called the court s decision “a disappointment.”
“Judge Bellis, and the Connecticut Supreme Court, asserted frightening and standardless power over the extrajudicial statements of litigants,” Pattis said in an email to The Associated Press. “Mr. Jones never threatened anyone; had he done so, he would have been charged with a crime. We are inching our way case-by-case toward a toothless, politically correct, First Amendment.”
Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the Sandy Hook families, said Jones deserved to be sanctioned for his threatening comments on his show.