Overview
Finally, Judge Buchwald declined to grant injunctive relief, citing separation of powers concerns and relying on the executive branch to follow the law as interpreted in her opinion:The blocking user “will not see any tweets posted by the blocked user” just as a muting user would not see tweets posted by a muted user, but whereas muting preserves the muted account’s ability to reply to a tweet sent by the muting account, blocking precludes the blocked user from “see[ing] or reply[ing] to the blocking user’s tweets” entirely. The limitation of the blocked user’s ability to reply directly is more than the blocking user merely ignoring the blocked user; it is the blocking user limiting the locked user’s right to speak in a discrete, measurable way.
Our complete coverage of the case is here.[T]hough we conclude that injunctive relief may be awarded in this case . . . we decline to do so at this time because declaratory relief is likely to achieve the same purpose. The Supreme Court has directed that we should “assume it is substantially likely that the President and other executive . . . officials would abide by an authoritative interpretation of [a] . . . constitutional provision," and there is simply no reason to depart from this assumption at this time.