It's a long ass opinion but from what I can glean, and I'm definitely not a lawyer, it's Justice Thomas' opinion and not a decision based on this last paragraph of his disposition:
The Second Circuit feared that then-President Trump cut off speech by using the features that Twitter made available to him. But if the aim is to ensure that speech is not smothered, then the more glaring concern must perforce be the dominant digital platforms themselves. As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms. The extent to which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions. This petition, unfortunately, affords us no opportunity to confront them.
This was a concurring opinion in the case where Trump was ordered by the 2nd circuit to unban some people from his twitter. Basically, Trump left office (and his account was banned before that by Twitter) so the case is moot and so the SCOTUS kicked it back to the 2nd circuit and told them to dismiss as moot.
But Thomas wrote his own opinion basically opining on the related, but not at-issue topic of digital platforms and how they can be regulated. This has no legal force, but lays out some great thinking by one of the smartest jurists alive today on how to tackle this issue. Ideally some smart lawyers will use this as a roadmap to find the right plaintiff and bring a case against twitter under the common carrier/public accommodation theories Thomas has laid out here.
It's basically Thomas took it as an opportunity to get his opinion out there with some ideas on how to fix it so we all know where he stands. Still requires a case or legislative change for it to mean anything
Line to opinion or case name?
page 20
It's a long ass opinion but from what I can glean, and I'm definitely not a lawyer, it's Justice Thomas' opinion and not a decision based on this last paragraph of his disposition:
This was a concurring opinion in the case where Trump was ordered by the 2nd circuit to unban some people from his twitter. Basically, Trump left office (and his account was banned before that by Twitter) so the case is moot and so the SCOTUS kicked it back to the 2nd circuit and told them to dismiss as moot.
But Thomas wrote his own opinion basically opining on the related, but not at-issue topic of digital platforms and how they can be regulated. This has no legal force, but lays out some great thinking by one of the smartest jurists alive today on how to tackle this issue. Ideally some smart lawyers will use this as a roadmap to find the right plaintiff and bring a case against twitter under the common carrier/public accommodation theories Thomas has laid out here.
It's basically Thomas took it as an opportunity to get his opinion out there with some ideas on how to fix it so we all know where he stands. Still requires a case or legislative change for it to mean anything