The Trump administration "will take a look" after billionaire investor Peter Thiel said the FBI and CIA should see if Chinese intelligence has infiltrated Google.Technologyread more
On Monday, the first day of Amazon's 48-hour shopping extravaganza this year, retailers that make more than $1 billion in annual revenues saw a 64% increase in their digital...Retailread more
Builder confidence for single-family homes rose just one point to 65 in July, according to the National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index (HMI)....Real Estateread more
Dimon is making his own bet on a digital coin that could transform the global payments landscape: JPM Coin.Financeread more
Expectations for lower interest rates and less fear about tariffs sent investors back into the market and set up what could be a profitable run ahead.Marketsread more
Southwest Airlines is delaying pilot hiring and captain upgrades with no end in sight to the grounding of the Boeing 737 Max.Airlinesread more
The U.S. and China have restarted their trade talks, but signs are showing a deal could be even harder to reach now.Marketsread more
The Federal Reserve's expected interest rate cuts appears to have impacted J.P. Morgan's forecast for 2019 net interest income.Financeread more
A crop of long-awaited technology companies coming to the public market this year created a "frothy" period, Bernstein said on TuesdayInvestingread more
GE hasn't had a year this good during this millennium. After that massive surge, one trader is warning investors to stay away.Trading Nationread more
Credit card sales volume rose 11% this quarter and merchant processing volume increased 12%, the bank says in its earnings statement.Banksread more
U.S. President Donald Trump violated the Constitution by blocking people whose views he disliked from his Twitter account, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.
In a 3-0 decision, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said the First Amendment forbids Trump from using Twitter's "blocking" function to limit access to his account, which has 61.8 million followers.
"The First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees," Circuit Judge Barrington Parker wrote, citing several Supreme Court decisions.
Neither the White House nor the U.S. Department of Justice immediately responded to requests for comment. The White House social media director Dan Scavino is also a defendant. Twitter had no immediate comment.
Trump has made his @realDonaldTrump account a central and controversial part of his presidency, using it to promote his agenda and to attack critics.
His use of the blocking function was challenged by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, as well as seven Twitter users he had blocked.
"The decision will help ensure the integrity and vitality of digital spaces that are increasingly important to our democracy," Jameel Jaffer, the Knight institute's executive director, said in a statement.
Tuesday's decision upheld a May 2018 ruling by U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan, which prompted Trump to unblock some accounts.
The Justice Department has called her ruling "fundamentally misconceived," saying Trump used Twitter to express his views, not to offer a public forum for discussion.
Parker, however, said Trump's account bears "all the trappings of an official, state-run account" and is "one of the White House's main vehicles for conducting official business."
He said Trump and his aides have characterized the president's tweets as official statements, and that even the National Archives views the tweets as official records.
Parker also found it ironic that Trump censored speech during a time when the conduct of the U.S. government and its officials was subject to intense, passionate and wide-open debate.
"This debate, as uncomfortable and as unpleasant as it frequently may be, is nonetheless a good thing," he wrote. "We remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less."
The case is Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University et al v Trump et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 18-1691.