Filed Date: March 14, 2017
Closed Date: 2017
Clearinghouse coding complete
On March 14, 2017, Twitter received an administrative summons from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), to provide records involving the specific identities of those operating under the @ALT_USCIS user account. In response, Twitter filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 6, 2017, stating that the summons both exceeded CBP authority under 19 U.S.C. § 1509 and violated the First Amendment. Specifically, Twitter claimed that disclosing the requested information to CBP would likely unmask the person or persons using the @ALT_USCIS account, thereby violating the constitutional protections for anonymous and pseudonymous political speech. Twitter sought both injunctive relief and damages.
In the wake of the inauguration, several “alternative” rogue government agency accounts were created on Twitter. Spurred on by the unauthorized Badlands National Park tweets and social media limitations set by the Trump administration, some of this wave of new users identified themselves as current and past employees of the agencies they exemplified, and others as fans or supporters. The @ALT_USCIS account was created in late January 2017 and portrays the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a unit within the Defendant DHS. @ALT_USCIS has tens of thousands of followers and frequently tweets critically against the Administration’s immigration policies and enforcement actions.
On April 7, 2017, CBP withdrew its summons. Twitter responded by voluntarily dismissing all claims against the Defendants.
Shortly thereafter, the DHS Office of Inspector General opened an investigation into: (1) whether the @ALT_USCIS investigation by the CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility was in any way improper, (2) whether CBP abused its authority in issuing the March 14, 2017 summons to Twitter, and (3) if there is broader misuse of summons authority at the DHS and/or its components.
DHS’s Office of Inspector General released the report on November 16, 2017. According to the report, "lack of clear guidance on the proper use of Section 1509 Summons has resulted in inconsistent—and in some cases, improper—use of such summonses." The report provided recommendations to ensure that CBP personnel are trained on the appropriate exercise of CBP’s examination and summons authority.
This case is now closed, though Twitter since filed a related challenge pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeking "records concerning demands from CBP and/or DHS that Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) provide them with information to identify the one or more persons using the Twitter account @ALT_uscis, an anonymous account critical of CBP." That case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 18-cv-00155.
Summary Authors
Amanda Grill (5/25/2017)
Virginia Weeks (2/26/2018)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4670071/parties/twitter-inc-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/
Spero, Joseph C. (California)
Carome, Patrick J. (District of Columbia)
Flanagan, Mark D (California)
Holtzblatt, Ari (District of Columbia)
Waxman, Seth (District of Columbia)
Spero, Joseph C. (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4670071/twitter-inc-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/
Last updated Jan. 23, 2024, 3:05 a.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 14, 2017
Closing Date: 2017
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Twitter, social media corporation
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public (for-profit) corporation
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Issues
General:
Type of Facility: