⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Journalist Alex Berenson challenges the dismissal of claims arising from his Twitter ban. In twenty twenty-one, Twitter permanently suspended his account under its COVID-nineteen misinformation rules, after he had criticized vaccination policies. He alleges that Biden administration officials and people at Pfizer coordinated pressure on Twitter to silence him. The private defendants here are Scott Gottlieb, a Pfizer director and former FDA commissioner, and Albert Bourla, its chief executive. The official-capacity federal defendants settled before this hearing; the argument you will hear concerns Gottlieb and Bourla. There are two main issues. Tortious interference means wrongfully disrupting someone else's contractual relationship. Here, under New York law, Berenson must show an actual breach of his agreement with Twitter. He says Twitter's five-strike policy and private assurances from an executive restricted its power to ban him. The district court disagreed, pointing to terms allowing suspension for any or no reason. The other claim is under Section nineteen eighty-five, three, a civil-rights law covering certain discriminatory conspiracies. It requires a qualifying class and discriminatory purpose directed at that class, not simply opposition to one person's statements. The dispute is whether unvaccinated people qualify and whether the alleged targeting was because of their status, rather than concern about misinformation. James Lawrence, of Envisage Law, will seek to revive Berenson's claims, defending both the contractual promises and the class-based theory. James Rouhandeh, of Davis Polk, will defend the dismissal, arguing that Twitter retained its contractual discretion and that the allegations do not establish discrimination against a protected class.

Berenson v. Trump (No. 25-2709) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 15, 2026.