Trump's bully boys went after Twitter, then turned tail and ran

US President Donald Trump's bully boys issued a summons on 14 March 2017:

Twitter replies on 6 April with a lawsuit, TWITTER, INC. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; JOHN F. KELLY, in his official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection; STEPHEN P. CARUSO, in his official capacity as Special Agent In Charge, U.S. Customs and Border Protection; and ADAM HOFFMAN, in his official capacity as Special Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection:

This is an action to prevent the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"), and the individual Defendants from unlawfully abusing a limited-purpose investigatory tool to try to unmask the real identity of one or more persons who have been using Twitter's social media platform, and specifically a Twitter account named @ALT_USCIS, to express public criticism of the Department and the current Administration. The rights of free speech afforded Twitter's users and Twitter itself under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution include a right to disseminate such anonymous or pseudonymous political speech. In these circumstances, Defendants may not compel Twitter to disclose information regarding the real identities of these users without first demonstrating that some criminal or civil offense has been committed, that unmasking the users' identity is the least restrictive means for investigating that offense, that the demand for this information is not motivated by a desire to suppress free speech, and that the interests of pursuing that investigation outweigh the important First Amendment rights of Twitter and its users. But Defendants have not come close to making any of those showings. And even if Defendants could otherwise demonstrate an appropriate basis for impairing the First Amendment interests of Twitter and its users, they certainly may not do so using the particular investigatory tool employed here—which Congress authorized solely to ensure compliance with federal laws concerning imported merchandise—because it is apparent that whatever investigation Defendants are conducting here does not pertain to imported merchandise.

@ALT_uscis weighs in:

line 45 pic.twitter.com/yj78uBVq69

— ALT Immigration (@ALT_uscis) April 6, 2017

The American Civil Liberties Union joins the fray:

On 8 April it was announced that the Trump Adminstration had withdrawn the summons.

Reuters, 8 April 2017:

The abrupt end to the dispute may indicate that Justice Department lawyers did not like their chances of succeeding in a fight about speech rights, said Jamie Lee Williams, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which advocates for digital rights.

"It seemed like a blatant attempt to censor or chill the people behind this account, or to retaliate against people who are speaking out against this administration," Williams said.

"This could have been a huge loss for the administration in court," she added.