The US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in NY upheld a ruling that Trump could not block his critics on the platform, because he used it as a means of communication with the public while in office.
He also wrote it was unprecedented for a "few private parties" to hold "the concentrated control of so much speech", and added that, "We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms".
Ruling on Monday, April 5, The Supreme court dismissed the case because Trump is not in office so there is no longer a live case or any controversy.
"Places of public accommodations", which can include hotels, restaurants, or entertainment venues, are in a similarly tricky spot when it comes to First Amendment rights.
Thomas suggested two possibilities: Regulate Twitter and other internet companies with dominant market share as a common carrier, such as transportation and communications companies, or as a place of public accommodation.
Thomas's opinion could be seen as an invitation for rules that could force social media platforms to host all customers regardless of their views.
He then questioned whether those companies weren't in violation of free speech rights when they censored the use of their platforms.
Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the decision in light of Trump no longer being president, but the conservative jurist illustrated the complexity of the matter given that Trump ultimately did not have full control over his own account.
The Twitter users said government officials would still be able to block threats and obscenity and could take such steps as limiting the number of replies one person can post within a specified time frame.
A district court ruled in 2018 that Trump's Twitter account was a "public forum" and that his blocking of followers violated the First Amendment as it was based on opinion and viewpoint. "Twitter exercised its authority to do exactly that". "This petition, unfortunately, affords us no opportunity to confront them".
Thomas argued some tech platforms are "sufficiently akin" to carriers such as telephone companies.
The U.S. House of Representatives is now considering legislation that could strip Section 230 protections that provide a liability shield for technology companies.
On the other side of the aisle, Democrats have raised concerns about the spread of misinformation and disinformation. Despite broad support for revising the law, legislators are still conflicted about how to actually reform or change it.