October Term 2022 · Docket 21-1496

Does providing a tool to a criminal count as aiding and abetting?

Twitter argues it cannot face liability for user crimes. Plaintiffs claim the platform knowingly aided terrorists.

Official caption
Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  4. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Twitter's counsel argued that the platform did not provide substantial assistance to the specific crime.

    Plaintiffs' counsel argued that the platform knowingly aided the terrorist act.

    Justice Thomas used a gun-lending analogy to probe the limits of liability.

    Justice Barrett questioned whether the specific destination of the user matters.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the legal line between neutral tools and criminal assistance. The core dispute centers on whether a platform can be liable for user actions.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 22, 2023.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Twitter wants the Court to dismiss the lawsuit against it.

Plaintiffs want the Court to allow their damages claim to proceed.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Twitter argues that providing a general tool does not constitute substantial assistance to a crime.

Plaintiffs argue that knowingly providing substantial assistance to a terrorist creates liability.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Thomas asked if lending a gun to a known criminal counts as aiding and abetting.

Justice Barrett asked if the destination of the user matters for liability.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines when technology companies face legal responsibility for user crimes. It sets the standard for platform liability in terrorism cases. The outcome shapes future lawsuits against digital service providers.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON