| Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 22, 2023 Decided May 18, 2023 | |
| Full case name | Twitter, Inc., et al., v. Mehier Taamneh, et al. |
| Docket no. | 21-1496 |
| Citations | 598U.S. 471 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Holding | |
| Respondents' allegations that Twitteraided and abetted ISIS in its terrorist attack on the Reina nightclub fail to state a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2333(d)(2). | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Thomas, joined byunanimous |
| Concurrence | Jackson |
| Laws applied | |
| Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act | |
Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471 (2023), was a case of theSupreme Court of the United States. The case considered whetherInternet service providers are liable for "aiding and abetting" a designated foreign terrorist organization in an "act of international terrorism", on account of recommending such content posted by users, under Section 2333 of theAntiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.[1] Along withGonzalez v. Google LLC,Taamneh is one of two cases wheresocial media companies are accused of aiding and abetting terrorism in violation of the law. The cases were decided together in a ruling by theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that Taamneh's case could proceed.[2] The cases challenge the broad liability immunity for hosting and recommending terrorist content that websites have enjoyed.[3]
The unanimous court ruled in May 2023 that the charges brought against Twitter and other companies were not permissible under the Antiterrorism Act, and did not address theSection 230 question. This decision also supported the Court'sper curiam decision inGonzalez returning that case to the lower court for review in light of theTwitter decision.[4]
Jordanian citizen Nawras Alassaf died in 2017 during anIslamic State-affiliated attack in Istanbul.[5] Alassaf's family suedTwitter,Google andFacebook arguing that the companies failed to control terrorist content on their sites. They won at the district court level.
Twitter appealed the district court ruling to theNinth Circuit arguing that the lower court decision improperly expanded the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2333.[6]
On appeal, theNinth Circuit did not consider protections under Section 230 in the case and affirmed the lower court ruling that stated that Twitter, Google, and Facebook could be liable. Twitter subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.[7]
The Supreme Court grantedcertiorari for the case in October 2022, alongside the related caseGonzalez v. Google LLC.[6] Free speech organizations like theCenter for Democracy and Technology, theAmerican Civil Liberties Union, theElectronic Frontier Foundation, and the Knight First Amendment Institute atColumbia University, as well as technology industry trade groups like theComputer & Communications Industry Association, and theUS Chamber of Commerce filedamicus briefs in support of the petitioner.[8] TheAnti-Defamation League, SenatorChuck Grassley, former US national security officials, and retired American military generals filed amicus briefs in support of the respondent.[8]
The Court heard oral arguments inTwitter on February 22, 2023. The questions and debate among the Justices and counsels for the parties focused more on the language of the Anti-Terrorism Act, particularly the language of "knowingly providing substantial assistance" to terrorism organisms, and what role Twitter and other services had in regards. Observers to the Court believed that the Justices were not looking for broad changes to the Anti-Terrorism Act or Section 230 that would upend the Internet.[9]
The Court gave its decision on May 18, 2023. The unanimous opinion, authored by JusticeClarence Thomas, found that "the allegations are insufficient to establish that these defendants aided and abetted ISIS in carrying out the relevant attack" under the Anti-Terrorism Act, as there was a "lack of concrete nexus" between the tech companies and terrorist groups like ISIS. The opinion purposely did not consider the impact of Section 230.[4][10] Separately, in aper curiam decision, the Court ordered theGonzalez case back to the Ninth Circuit, requesting that court to consider the case in light of theTwitter decision and making no additional rulings in that case.[10]
JusticeKetanji Brown Jackson wrote a concurrence stating that the decision was "narrow in important respects", and suggested there may be other routes for family to seek relief.[4][10]