Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Twitter Inc. v. Taamneh - Cert. Petition
Twitter Inc. v. Taamneh - Cert. Petition
21-
IN THE
CONDITIONAL PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
SETH P. WAXMAN
Counsel of Record
PATRICK J. CAROME
ARI HOLTZBLATT
CLAIRE H. CHUNG
AMY LISHINSKI
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 663-6000
[email protected]
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
(i)
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
(ii)
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
(iii)
DIRECTLY RELATED PROCEEDINGS
(iv)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ............................................ i
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING .............................. ii
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ............ iii
DIRECTLY RELATED PROCEEDINGS .................. iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................... vii
INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 1
OPINIONS BELOW ........................................................... 5
JURISDICTION ................................................................. 6
STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .................. 6
STATEMENT ..................................................................... 7
A. Plaintiffs’ Allegations ........................................... 7
B. Proceedings Below ................................................ 9
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION.......... 14
I. THE DECISION BELOW IS WRONG AND
CONFLICTS WITH DECISIONS OF OTHER
COURTS OF APPEALS ................................................. 14
A. Allegations That Defendants Provided
Widely Available Services That Were
Used By Terrorists—Despite
Defendants’ Efforts To Prevent Such
Use—Cannot Establish “Knowing”
Assistance ............................................................ 15
(v)
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
Page
B. The Terrorist Attack That Injured The
Plaintiff Is The “Act Of International
Terrorism” And “Principal Violation”
That A Defendant Must Assist, Not
Some General Terrorist Campaign .................. 22
II. TOGETHER, THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S TWO
HOLDINGS ELIMINATE ANY MEANINGFUL
LIMITATION ON ATA AIDING-AND-
ABETTING LIABILITY ................................................. 26
III. IF THE COURT GRANTS CERTIORARI IN
WEISS OR STRAUSS, THE COURT SHOULD
AT LEAST HOLD THIS CASE AND
APPROPRIATELY DISPOSE OF IT IN A
MANNER CONSISTENT WITH ANY MERITS
DECISION IN WEISS OR STRAUSS ............................. 29
CONCLUSION ................................................................. 31
APPENDIX A: Opinion of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
dated June 22, 2021 .................................................... 1a
APPENDIX B: Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of
California, dated October 29, 2018 ....................... 151a
APPENDIX C: Order of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
denying petition for panel rehearing and
rehearing en banc, dated December 27,
2021 ........................................................................... 181a
vii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Page(s)
Atchley v. AstraZeneka UK Limited, 22 F.4th
204 (D.C. Cir. 2022) ............................ 18, 19, 25, 27, 28
Boim v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief &
Development, 549 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2008) ............. 17
Camp v. Dema, 948 F.2d 455 (8th Cir. 1991) ........... 20, 24
Colon v. Twitter, Inc., 14 F.4th 1213 (11th Cir.
2021) ............................................................................. 25
Crosby v. Twitter, Inc., 921 F.3d 617 (6th Cir.
2019) ....................................................................... 24, 27
Field v. Mans, 516 U.S. 59 (1995).................................... 24
Fields v. Twitter, Inc., 881 F.3d 739 (9th Cir.
2018) ............................................................................. 27
Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53 (2d Cir.
2019) ............................................................................. 25
Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir.
1983) ......................................... 11, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26
Honickman v. BLOM Bank SAL, 6 F.4th 487
(2d Cir. 2021) ......................................................... 18, 25
Kaplan v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, 999 F.3d
842 (2d Cir. 2021) .................................................. 18, 19
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550
U.S. 618 (2007) ............................................................ 23
Linde v. Arab Bank PLC, 882 F.3d 314 (2d Cir.
2018) ............................................................................. 25
Monsen v. Consolidated Dressed Beef Co., 579
F.2d 793 (3d Cir. 1978) ......................................... 20, 21
viii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page(s)
Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021) ............. 23
Retana v. Twitter, Inc., 1 F.4th 378 (5th Cir.
2021) ............................................................................. 25
Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983) ............... 23
SEC v. Fehn, 97 F.3d 1276 (9th Cir. 1996)..................... 24
Strauss v. Crédit Lyonnais, S.A., 842 F. App’x
701 (2d Cir. 2021) (mem.) ........................... 4, 17, 28, 29
United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467 (5th
Cir. 2011) ...................................................................... 17
Weiss v. National Westminster Bank, PLC,
993 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2021) ...... 4, 17, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30
Woods v. Barnett Bank of Fort Lauderdale,
765 F.2d 1004 (11th Cir. 1985) .................................. 21
Woodward v. Metro Bank of Dallas, 522 F.2d
84 (5th Cir. 1975)................................................... 20, 21
DOCKETED CASES
Gonzalez v. Google LLC, No. 21-1333 (U.S.) ............. 1, 13
O’Neill v. Al Rajhi Bank, No. 13-318 (U.S.) ................... 5
Strauss v. Crédit Lyonnais, S.A., No. 21-382
(U.S.) .............................................................. 2, 5, 17, 30
Weiss v. National Westminster Bank, PLC,
No. 21-381 (U.S.) ..................................... 2, 5, 17, 29, 30
ix
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page(s)
STATUTES, RULES, AND REGULATIONS
18 U.S.C.
§ 2333 .................................. 2, 3, 6, 11, 20, 22, 23, 26, 28
§ 2339B ................................................................... 17, 23
28 U.S.C. § 1254 ................................................................... 6
47 U.S.C. § 230 ..................................................................... 2
Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act,
Pub. L. No. 114-222, 130 Stat. 852 (2016) ............ 3, 26
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Facebook Community Standards, https://
transparency.fb.com/policies/community-
standards/ (visited May 26, 2022)............................... 8
Restatement (Second) of Torts (1979) ............................ 24
The Twitter Rules, https://support.twitter.com/
articles/18311 (visited May 26, 2022) ......................... 8
Yayla, Ahmet S., The Reina Nightclub Attack
and the Islamic State Threat to Turkey, 10
CTC Sentinel 9 (Mar. 2017), https://ctc.
usma.edu/the-reina-nightclub-attack-and-
the-islamic-state-threat-to-turkey/ ........................... 8
YouTube Violent or Graphic Content Policies,
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer
/2802008?hl=en (visited May 26, 2022) ...................... 8
IN THE
TWITTER, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
CONDITIONAL PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
INTRODUCTION
This is a protective, conditional petition relating to
Gonzalez. The Court should deny review in that case,
but if the Court grants review there, it should grant in
this case as well. At a minimum, if the Court grants
review in Gonzalez, it should hold this case pending its
2
App. 62a. The court further held that it did not matter
that Defendants’ widely available services were not
used in connection with the specific terrorist act in
question. According to the court, it was enough for
Plaintiffs to have alleged that Defendants aided, in
some general sense, “ISIS’s terrorism campaign” or
“enterprise.” App. 52a-54a, 63a. Both holdings conflict
with the ATA’s text and structure, as well as
longstanding principles of aiding-and-abetting law, and
threaten liability for ordinary businesses providing
widely available services, such as telephone companies
providing run-of-the-mill telecommunications services.
Each error warrants review, but the two combined
are particularly troubling. No other circuit has con-
strued secondary liability under the ATA to sweep so
broadly. In two ATA cases currently before the Court
at the certiorari stage, the Second Circuit held that as-
sisting an organization that allegedly had ties to terror-
ism without knowing that the aid would be used for a
“terroristic purpose” does not support aiding-and-
abetting liability under Section 2333. Weiss v. Nation-
al Westminster Bank, PLC, 993 F.3d 144, 166-167 (2d
Cir. 2021), cert. filed, No. 21-381 (U.S. Sept. 3, 2021); see
also Strauss v. Crédit Lyonnais, S.A., 842 F. App’x 701
(2d Cir. 2021) (mem.) (disposing of the case “for the
reasons discussed in Weiss”), cert. filed, No. 21-382
(U.S. Sept. 3, 2021). Here, by contrast, the Ninth Cir-
cuit applied no “terroristic purpose” requirement. To
the contrary, it acknowledged that Plaintiffs do not al-
lege that Defendants had “any intent to further or aid
ISIS’s terrorist activities” or “shared any of ISIS’s ob-
jectives,” and that, even according to Plaintiffs, De-
fendants “regularly” enforced rules against terrorist
content. App. 65a. Plaintiffs’ allegations do not satisfy
5
OPINIONS BELOW
The Ninth Circuit’s decision (App. 1a-150a) is re-
ported at 2 F.4th 871. The district court’s order grant-
ing Defendants’ motion to dismiss (App. 151a-180a) is
reported at 343 F. Supp. 3d 904. The Ninth Circuit’s
6
JURISDICTION
The Ninth Circuit entered judgment on June 22,
2021. It denied Defendants’ timely petition for panel
rehearing and rehearing en banc on December 27, 2021.
On March 14, 2022, Justice Kagan granted Defendants’
application to extend the time within which to file a pe-
tition for a writ of certiorari, making the deadline May
26, 2022. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1254(1).
STATEMENT
A. Plaintiffs’ Allegations
In 2017, Abdulkadir Masharipov shot and killed 39
people at the Reina nightclub in Istanbul, Turkey
(“Reina attack”). C.A.E.R.74 ¶ 1, C.A.E.R.141 ¶¶ 374-
377. Among the victims of that attack was Nawras
Alassaf, a citizen of Jordan and a relative of Plaintiffs,
who identify themselves as American citizens.
C.A.E.R.80-81 ¶¶ 33-37. Plaintiffs allege that
Masharipov committed the attack at the direction of
ISIS. See C.A.E.R.132-135 ¶¶ 325, 334, 337, 342-343,
C.A.E.R.140-141 ¶¶ 367-370.
Plaintiffs sued Twitter, Google, and Facebook—
operators of global Internet platforms that are used by
billions of people across the world to send and share
hundreds of millions of messages, Tweets, videos, and
other posts on myriad topics every day. See
C.A.E.R.107-108 ¶¶ 189-196; C.A.E.R.111-112 ¶¶ 212-
219; C.A.E.R.115-116 ¶¶ 231-238. As relevant here,
Plaintiffs sought to hold Defendants liable under the
ATA for aiding and abetting. C.A.E.R.170-171.
The Amended Complaint does not allege that De-
fendants helped to commit the attack, or even had any
connection to the attack or to Masharipov. Plaintiffs do
not even allege that Masharipov ever had accounts on
Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube (which is owned by
8
1
Defendants’ rules prohibit the use of their platforms for ter-
rorist activities or content. See The Twitter Rules, https://support.
twitter.com/articles/18311 (visited May 26, 2022); YouTube Violent
or Graphic Content Policies, https://support.google.com/youtube/
answer/2802008?hl=en (visited May 26, 2022); Facebook Community
Standards, https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/
(visited May 26, 2022).
9
B. Proceedings Below
Plaintiffs sued Defendants in the Northern District
of California, seeking treble damages. See
C.A.E.R.117. Defendants moved to dismiss the
Amended Complaint for failure to allege essential ele-
ments of the claims and on the additional ground that
all of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act. See Mot. to Dismiss,
Dist. Ct. Dkt. 62.2
2
Plaintiffs alleged more claims initially but appealed only the
district court’s dismissal of their aiding-and-abetting claim. App.
60a. Only the aiding-and-abetting claim is at issue in this petition.
10
3
In seeking this Court’s review, the plaintiffs in Weiss and
Strauss cite Boim v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief & Devel-
opment, 549 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2008), and United States v. El-
Mezain, 664 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2011), as conflicting with the Second
Circuit’s decisions. See Pet. 21-27, Weiss, No. 21-381 (U.S. Sept. 3,
2021); Pet. 15-17, Strauss, No. 21-382 (U.S. Sept. 3, 2021). Even if
that were so, those cases do not support what the Ninth Circuit
did in this case. In Boim, the Seventh Circuit required that the
defendant have knowingly contributed to the “nonviolent wing of
an organization that he knows to engage in terrorism.” 549 F.3d at
698 (emphasis added). El-Mezain is a criminal case that involved
the “material support” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, which pro-
hibits “knowingly” providing “material support or resources to a
foreign terrorist organization.” 664 F.3d at 536; see also infra p.23.
Neither case suggests that a social media platform knowingly as-
sisted an act of international terrorism merely because terrorist
sympathizers used its services in violation of the platform’s rules
barring such use, particularly where, as here, the plaintiff alleged
that the platform prohibited terrorism content and regularly re-
moved it, and did not allege that the platform failed to block any
specific account or post after becoming aware that it was tied to
the terrorist organization at issue.
18
4
Although Twitter disagrees with the D.C. Circuit’s holding
that a defendant need not have “specific intent” or be “‘one in spir-
it’” with terrorists to be liable for aiding and abetting, Atchley, 22
F.4th at 223-224, the D.C. Circuit still relied on more than Plain-
tiffs’ “failure to do more” theory that the Ninth Circuit deemed
sufficient.
20
5
The Second and Eleventh Circuits have also affirmed dis-
missal of ATA aiding-and-abetting claims against operators of so-
cial media platforms. See Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53, 71
(2d Cir. 2019) (affirming dismissal on Section 230 grounds), cert.
denied, 140 S. Ct. 761 (2020); Colon v. Twitter, Inc., 14 F.4th 1213,
1228 (11th Cir. 2021) (affirming dismissal for failure to plausibly
allege the elements of an ATA aiding-and-abetting claim).
26
6
The United States stated in a footnote that the Ninth Cir-
cuit’s analysis of the ATA in Gonzalez does not conflict with the
Second Circuit’s ATA decisions because the Ninth Circuit favora-
bly discussed other Second Circuit decisions. U.S. Amicus Br. 23
n.3, Nos. 21-381 & 21-382 (U.S. May 24, 2022). The Ninth Circuit
did not, however, discuss the recent Weiss or Strauss decisions
and it is the scienter analysis in those decisions that conflicts with
the Ninth Circuit’s scienter analysis in this case.
31
CONCLUSION
The Court should resolve this petition for certiorari
as follows:
1. If certiorari is denied in Gonzalez, deny this pe-
tition as well, because this case will have ceased to be a
vehicle for the Court’s review of the questions present-
ed in this petition.
2. If certiorari is granted in Gonzalez, grant this
petition as well.
3. Alternatively, hold this petition until the Court
disposes of Weiss or Strauss and then dispose of this
case as appropriate, conditional on the petition in Gon-
zalez remaining outstanding.
Respectfully submitted.
SETH P. WAXMAN
Counsel of Record
PATRICK J. CAROME
ARI HOLTZBLATT
CLAIRE H. CHUNG
AMY LISHINSKI
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 663-6000
[email protected]
MAY 2022