BuzzFeed justice reporter Zoe Tillman tweeted Wednesday night that there are already a slate of lawsuits that have been decided about social media that appear to be key pieces of President Donald Trump's lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
But Washington Post reporter Aaron Blake explained Thursday that the Supreme Court has already decided too.
"This claim was immediately and widely derided by legal experts, who suggested that it was more of a PR stunt and a fundraising ploy than anything — arguments that were legitimized by Trump quickly seeking to raise money off it," wrote Blake. "And if Trump's lawsuit fails, he might have his own handpicked Supreme Court justices to thank."
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a 2019 opinion that effectively killed a similar attempt. The case involved the operator of a public access station that tried to suspend producers because of the content on the station.
"A district court had ruled that MNN was not a state actor, before a federal appeals court disagreed and said it was," said the Post. "Kavanaugh, writing a decision backed by the conservative wing of the court, ruled that it wasn't. He wrote that providing a public platform doesn't make one a state actor who can be sued for First Amendment violations."
The Supreme Court ruled in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assoc. in 1985 questioned whether a private railroad company could test employees for drugs and alcohol.
In that case, Blake wrote that "the regulations provided some immunity from state law for the private companies, and the court ruled that this made the drug testing akin to state action."
Since that case was decided, the courts have taken a narrow look at whether private companies can be "state actors," as Trump says Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are. In that case, the appeals court said the company could be considered a state actor because it was authorized by Congress. But Kavanaugh rejected it.
"That decision didn't specifically address social media companies, and the lower-court rulings in social media cases that have cited Halleck aren't binding precedent. But it does suggest that this lawsuit, however seriously intended, does indeed face a tough road ahead — because of and potentially even with Trump's own self-appointed justices," he wrote in closing.
