From a decision Tuesday by Judge Brantley Starr (N.D. Tex.) in Richards v. X Corp. & Trump:
Richards is an active user on X, formerly known as Twitter, where he alleges he has built a following and shares his sincerely held beliefs. X Corp. owns and operates the platform. Richards alleges that X Corp. removed most of the content posted to his account and subjected his content to "shadowbanning." Richards seeks recovery under the theory that X is subject to constitutional constraints because X Corp.'s owner and controller, Elon Musk, "simultaneously holds significant federal authority." …
Richards asks this Court to "[o]rder President Trump to cease coordination with private platforms for religious speech suppression and issue executive directive prohibiting federal agencies from using AI systems with documented religious bias for government functions." The Court is flattered but does not think that highly of itself.
Richards sues President Donald J. Trump in his individual capacity but asks the Court to make him perform official duties. Suing a government official in his individual capacity is a bar on injunctive relief related to his official duties….
Richards [also] seeks "tiered injunctive relief," against X Corp. and asks the Court to enter an order that (1) requires X Corp. to restore "all of Plaintiff's historical content" to "original visibility settings," and (2) requires X Corp., among other things, to remove "all algorithmic throttling and visibility filtering" from Richards's account and restore access to Richards's bot accounts. In his third motion, Richards also asks the Court to prohibit X Corp.'s use of certain AI systems; require X Corp. to provide Richards with "real-time algorithmic transparency;" and "[o]rder immediate disclosure to major media outlets of the constitutional violations documented" in the TRO….
Richards argues that because the owner of X Corp., Elon Musk, took a temporary position as a special government employee, the platform is converted into a government forum, and thus subject to liability as a government actor…. [T]his novel argument falls short of the high standard for a temporary injunction. The record, even as amended and supplemented in this third request for a TRO, is insufficient to establish the kind of "public entwinement" necessary for Richards to bring a First Amendment claim against X Corp. in the first place….
In addition to injunctive relief, Richards asks the Court to hold President Trump and his Director of Security, Dan Freeman, in contempt. Richards asserts that Freeman initially claimed over email that he could not accept service on Trump's behalf but then accepted service the next day. Richards argues this constitutes obstruction of the legal process and a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401.
Whether to find a party or person in contempt falls within the Court's discretion, and the Court determines that, even assuming everything Richards asserted is true, the roughly sixteen-hour delay in service Freeman's statement caused does not rise to the level of contempt of court….
The post Court Rejects TRO Request That Argued X Became a Government Forum When Musk Worked for the Government appeared first on Reason.com.
