Twitter, Inc. v. Paxton

Petitioner failed to establish standing in a First Amendment retaliation case without showing “(1) an injury in fact..." Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 157-158 (2014).

In response to Petitioner (Twitter) banning President Donald Trump for life from its social media platform, Respondent served Petitioner a Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") to obtain materials for its content moderation decisions. Petitioner filed suit against Respondent in District Court to enjoin Respondent from enforcing the CID and from continuing his investigation. Additionally, Petitioner asked the court to declare the investigation unconstitutional, arguing that the CID was served as retaliation for its protected speech under the First Amendment. The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing; ripeness for judicial decision. Petitioner appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the case is ripe, alleging that it suffered a legally cognizable injury from Respondent. The Court held that the case is not ripe for adjudication because Petitioner has not shown that the CID has chilled its speech or that Petitioner has suffered a cognizable injury. Under the retaliatory framework analysis, the Court reasoned that in addition to Petitioner’s allegations being too speculative, Petitioner’s claim that the CID impeded on Petitioner’s speech is too vague and general to establish Petitioner’s injury. The Court also reasoned that as the CID is not self-enforcing, Petitioner has not and may not suffer an injury. Therefore, while there is no injury to Petitioner, the case is not ripe for adjudication. AFFIRMED.