The Daily Fuckup

Donald Trump’s filing on September 23, 2021 was not a claim that presidents are above contract terms. It was a venue objection. In his opposition to Twitter’s transfer bid, Trump argued that the company’s forum-selection clause should not govern a dispute tied to his use of the platform while he was in office. Twitter said the case belonged in California under its terms of service. ([law360.com](https://www.law360.com/media/articles/1424968/trump-fights-transfer-of-big-tech-censorship-suits-to-calif-?utm_source=openai))

The fight turned on a basic procedural question: whether a user who later became president could sidestep a clause he accepted before taking office. Trump’s side said his presidency changed the equation. Twitter’s position was that the clause was valid, mandatory, and covered the lawsuit. ([law360.com](https://www.law360.com/media/articles/1424968/trump-fights-transfer-of-big-tech-censorship-suits-to-calif-?utm_source=openai))

Judge Robert Scola rejected Trump’s argument and granted Twitter’s motion to transfer on October 26, 2021. The order, entered that day on the Florida docket, sent the case to the Northern District of California; the California docket shows the case arriving there on October 28, 2021. Some coverage published the ruling on October 27, but the court order itself was dated October 26. ([courthousenews.com](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/trump-twitter-transfer.pdf?utm_source=openai))

The ruling did not give Trump a special pass based on his time in office. It treated the dispute the way courts treat most forum-selection fights: as a contract and venue issue, not a presidential exception. ([courthousenews.com](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/trump-twitter-transfer.pdf?utm_source=openai))