Twitter v. Taamneh
In brief
Online platforms do not aid and abet an international terrorist attack merely by providing general services and failing to remove more terrorist content.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · May 18, 2023 · Opinion by Justice Thomas
- What it’s about
- In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that social media platforms cannot be held liable for aiding and abetting international terrorism under 18 U.S.C. Section 2333 merely for failing to take more aggressive action to remove terrorist content.
- Who it affects
- Social-media companies are less likely to face aiding-and-abetting claims under this law based only on allegations that they did not remove terrorist content aggressively enough.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court found that providing generalized platform access does not constitute knowingly providing substantial assistance to a specific terrorist attack.
The case defined limits on civil liability for online platforms under a federal law allowing suits over international terrorism.
Question presented
1. Whether a defendant that provides generic, widely available services to billions of users and allegedly fails to take and enforce "meaningful" aggressive-content-removal policies to prevent terrorists from using those services has "knowingly provided substantial assistance" under 18 U.S.C. § 2333(d)(2), and is thus liable for an act of international terrorism. 2. Whether liability under Section 2333(d)(2) requires proof that the defendant provided substantial assistance to the specific act of international terrorism that injured the plaintiff.
What the Court decided
Holding
Plaintiffs’ allegations that these social-media companies aided and abetted ISIS in its terrorist attack on the Reina nightclub fail to state a claim under 18 U. S. C. §2333(d)(2). 2 F. 4th 871, reversed.
- Result
- Reversed
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Wrote an opinion
- Majority · 8joined the Court's opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Jacksonwrote separately
From the opinions
“Plaintiffs’ allegations that these social-media companies aided and abetted ISIS in its terrorist attack on the Reina nightclub fail to state a claim under 18 U. S. C. §2333(d)(2).”
What's next
The Ninth Circuit's decision was reversed, so the plaintiffs' claim under this federal provision cannot proceed on these allegations. Lower courts will apply the decision when evaluating whether a company allegedly gave substantial assistance to a specific terrorist attack.
Why it matters
Victims of terrorist attacks must show a closer link between a company's assistance and the specific attack.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Opinion added: Taamneh
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Petition
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in Twitter v. Taamneh?
- The Court ruled that the allegations did not state a claim that social-media companies aided and abetted the Reina nightclub attack.
- Who won Twitter v. Taamneh?
- Twitter and the other social-media companies won. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision.
- What does Twitter v. Taamneh mean for social-media companies?
- General access to a widely available platform, without more, does not establish substantial assistance to a specific terrorist attack.
- Is the terrorism aiding-and-abetting rule still the law after Twitter v. Taamneh?
- Yes. The Court applied the federal provision but said the plaintiffs' allegations did not meet its requirements.
- What happens next in Twitter v. Taamneh?
- The Ninth Circuit's decision is reversed. Courts considering similar claims must evaluate whether allegations connect assistance to a specific attack.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.