Filed Date: March 29, 2021
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is about a public official who blocked a private citizen from viewing the Twitter account that she used for official communication with her constituents.
On March 29, 2021, the plaintiff, a private citizen, filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendant, an Advisory Neighborhood Commission Representative for Single-Member District 6B10, violated his First Amendment rights by blocking him on a public forum because of the viewpoint and content of his speech. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiff sought injunctive relief restoring his access to the public forum created by the defendant’s tweets and preventing her from excluding him because of speech content; a declaratory judgement that the defendant’s actions violated the First Amendment; nominal damages; and attorney’s fees.
On Twitter, users can “block” other users, which prevents the blocked user from seeing, replying to, or interacting with other replies to the blocking user’s tweets. Prior to the incident in question, the plaintiff had replied to multiple tweets posted by the defendant. Following the riots at the Capitol on January 6th, 2021, the defendant tweeted a letter she had written urging long prison sentences for rioters and asked other commissioners to sign on. After tweeting her disdain the next day that almost none had signed, the plaintiff replied in a tweet, “Quite amazing to write a letter, ask 250 to sign it, have 249 not agree to sign, and then to announce publicly that the other 249 are the problem.” Later that day, the defendant blocked the plaintiff from viewing or interacting with her Twitter account.
This suit followed. The plaintiff’s complaint emphasized the official nature of the defendant’s Twitter account, noting that the account’s biography referenced the defendant’s official role on the Commission, and a substantial portion of the account’s tweets constituted official communication with constituents. Because the account was used for public business, the plaintiff argued that the defendant had created a public forum via the comment threads on her tweets and that blocking him based on content of speech therefore violated the First Amendment.
On April 27, 2021, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to dismiss in accordance with a settlement agreement. The defendant agreed to unblock the plaintiff on Twitter and not block him again in the future on any social media account used for official communication. Further, the District of Columbia agreed to pay the plaintiff an agreed-upon settlement amount.
On May 5, 2021, Judge Randolph D. Moss granted the motion to dismiss. The court ordered, pursuant to the settlement agreement, that the defendant must adhere to the social media access terms reached by the parties and retained jurisdiction to enforce this aspect of the settlement before dismissing the case.
Summary Authors
Jordan Schuler (9/22/2021)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59773603/parties/hecker-v-rucker-krepp/
Moss, Randolph Daniel (District of Columbia)
Gerstein, Charles L. (District of Columbia)
Harrow, Jason (California)
Amarillas, Fernando (District of Columbia)
Racine, Karl A. (District of Columbia)
Moss, Randolph Daniel (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59773603/hecker-v-rucker-krepp/
Last updated Jan. 28, 2024, 3:10 a.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 29, 2021
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
D.C. resident who was blocked by a public official on Twitter.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Representative for Single-Member District 6B10 (Washington, D.C., District of Columbia), City
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration: 2021 - None
Issues
General: