Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute At Columbia Univ., Thomas, J. concurring, 539 U.S. ____ (2021)
commentary by Dar ul Harb Esq.
The case was remanded to the Second Circuit due to being mooted by the change of administrations, but Justice Thomas took the opportunity to publish his opinion about the merits anyway in a concurrence with the order. He considers the status of these social media forums an important First Amendment issue, and must have been pleased with his clerks' work on the case.
Justice Thomas' remarks here are what is known legally as 'dicta.' They are not a holding of the Court, but reflect Justice Thomas' own analysis and view of the law. The Court's opinion was a very short one, but they did grant the petition for certiorari, and vacated the Second Circuit's decision, citing the Court's precedent in United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950). Justice Thomas wrote a more extensive concurring opinion. It's more like an editorial or law review article. It's very interesting, nonetheless, as he's sketching out possible approaches lawmakers could use to regulate social media consistent with the established First Amendment jurisprudence of the Court.
One very salient point he makes is in observing the conflict between the Second Circuit holding in the case on appeal that President Trump couldn't block people from commenting on his Twitter account due to it being in some sense a "public forum,' and Twitter subsequently blocking everyone from commenting on that 'public forum,' by banning @realdonaldtrump from Twitter entirely.
PDF link (the opinion is among the various orders of the Court released today):
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_3204.pdf
(H/T @InsightPlease@social.quodverum.com for the link!)