The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Reprinted with permission from


Trump’s tweeting keeps getting him into trouble in court, and on Wednesday it happened again, when U.S. District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled that no, he can’t block people on Twitter for criticizing him.

“We readily conclude the speech in which individual plaintiffs seek to engage is protected speech,” the judge wrote.

In other words, Trump’s critics have a First Amendment right to tweet at him, even if he doesn’t like what they have to say.

The reason is not merely because he is president, but because of how he uses his personal account for “executive functions,” such as “the appointment of officers (including cabinet secretaries), the removal of officers, and the conduct of foreign policy[.]”

That time Trump used his personal Twitter account to announce the firing of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, for example? And national security adviser H.R. McMaster. And Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin. And others. All executive functions.

Trump might have had a better argument for blocking his critics on Twitter, but he’s the one who decided to turn his personal account into an official arm of the presidency.

He did this to himself — because he “presents” his personal account “as being a presidential account as opposed to a personal account and, more importantly, uses the account to take actions that can be taken only by the President as President.”

And because of Trump’s actions, the court concludes that the use of the account “is governmental in nature.”

So what’s the bottom line?

“While we must recognize, and are sensitive to, the President’s personal First Amendment rights,” the court rules, “he cannot exercise those rights in a way that infringes the corresponding First Amendment rights of those who have criticized him.”

Trump is free to use his Twitter account in whatever ridiculous and absurd way he chooses, no matter how badly it backfires on him or how many times courts use his tweets against him.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, last year cited Trump’s own tweeted declaration of a “TRAVEL BAN” to dismiss the government’s argument that his ban on predominantly Muslim countries was not actually a travel ban. Trump had tweeted it, and that made it so.

That hasn’t stopped him from continuing to use his account in reckless ways. And now another court is holding his own tweets against him to uphold the First Amendment.

Wednesday’s ruling is a humiliating defeat for Trump and a victory for the First Amendment. It means that the plaintiffs who brought the case — and several others who have been blocked by Trump — have the right to see his every incoherent early-morning meltdowns along with the rest of us, and to exercise their First Amendment right to respond, even if he doesn’t like it.



Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Dr. Mehmet Oz and Sean Hannity

Youtube Screenshot

Fox News prime-time host Sean Hannity is priming his audience to see election fraud in any defeat for Dr. Mehmet Oz, his favored candidate who currently leads the GOP primary for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania with two percent of votes outstanding. If the fast-closing hedge funder Dave McCormick takes the lead and the Oz camp claims the election has been stolen, it could set up a potentially explosive proxy war with Hannity’s colleague Laura Ingraham, whose Fox program favors McCormick and has suggested he is likely to prevail when all the votes are counted.

The GOP primary was a chaotic slugfest that split Fox’s slate of pro-GOP hosts in an unusually public way. Hannity was Oz’s most prominent supporter, reportedly securing the support of former President Donald Trump and using his program to endorse the TV personality, give him a regular platform, and target the challenge from right-wing commentator and Fox & Friends regular Kathy Barnette. Ingraham, meanwhile, used her Fox program (which airs in the hour following Hannity’s) to promote McCormick, criticize Oz, and defend Barnette.

Keep reading... Show less
Youtube Screenshot

Overturning Roe v. Wade is very unpopular, yet another poll confirms. Nearly two out of three people, or 64 percent, told the NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist poll that Roe should not be overturned, including 62 percent of independents. The poll also includes some good news for Democrats.

According to the poll, the prospect of the Supreme Court striking down Roe in the most extreme way is motivating Democratic voters more than Republicans: Sixty-six percent of Democrats say it makes them more likely to vote in November compared with 40 percent of Republicans. That echoes a recent NBC poll finding a larger rise in enthusiasm about voting among Democrats than Republicans.

Keep reading... Show less
{{ }}