IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

TOD BEARDSLEY, aka @TODB on

TWITTER,

Plaintiff

§

§

§

v. § CASE NO. ___________________

SENATOR JOHN CORNYN, aka

@JohnCornyn on TWITTER,

Defendant

§

§

§

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Tod Beardsley, aka @TODB on Twitter, files this Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. §1983, 42 U.S.C. §1988, and 28 U.S.C. §2201 against Defendant, Senator John Cornyn,

seeking a declaratory judgment and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. Plaintiff alleges

as follows in support of their claims. 

Introduction

This case is about the electorate’s right to view and participate on the social media feeds

of their elected officials when those officials create interactive web pages and social media

accounts for that purpose. See Knight First Amend. Inst. At Colum. Univ. v. Trump, 302 F. Supp.

3d 541, 573 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). Plaintiff has been blocked from participating in Defendant Senator

John Cornyn’s (hereinafter “Defendant Cornyn”) public forum, specifically his public Twitter

feed, because Senator Cornyn disapproves of Plaintiff’s politics.

Jurisdiction and Venue

1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, and §1343. Venue

in this Court is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2).

Plaintiff

1

1:20-cv-456

Case 1:20-cv-00456-LY Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 1 of 9
2. Plaintiff, Tod Beardsley, is an adult resident and voter in Travis County, Texas. Plaintiff

uses the Twitter handle (social media account) @TODB for expressing political views in public

and private forums, and to receive and disseminate information to and from elected officials such

as Defendant, Senator John Cornyn. 

Defendant

3. Defendant John Cornyn is a United States Senator for the State of Texas. He operates a 

Twitter account @JohnCornyn. He is sued in both his official and individual capacity. He acted 

under color of law. He may be served at his place of business 517 Hart Senate Office Bldg., 

Washington, DC 20510. Alternatively, he may be served at his Dallas office 5001 Spring Valley 

Road Suite 1125 E, Dallas, TX 75244; at his Austin, Texas office 221 W 6th St #1530, Austin, 

TX 78701; or at his residence in Austin, Texas 200 Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701.

Statement of Facts

Plaintiff’s Political Expressions and Advocacy:

4. Plaintiff has over 7,000 Twitter users following him on his @TODB Twitter handle.

Many of those users engage in political discussions through Twitter.

5. Plaintiff came to the conclusion that sometime in the last 12 months as to the reason

@JohnCornyn blocked @TODB. Plaintiff believes his tweets containing information related to

cyber and election security and the tagging of @JohnCornyn in those tweets resulted in

Defendant Cornyn blocking Plaintiff’s access to Defendant Cornyn’s Twitter account, Exhibit 2.

Plaintiff can no longer read, write, tag, or share tweets with Defendant Cornyn as he did on a

weekly basis before the ban. None of the tweets posted or shared by @TODB to @JohnCornyn

were illegal, obscene, or threatening. It is Plaintiff’s position that Defendant Cornyn saw

2

Case 1:20-cv-00456-LY Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 2 of 9
Plaintiff’s tags and tweets and blocked Plaintiff because Defendant Cornyn sought to avoid

criticism for his inaction on cyber security and election security.

6. As of the filing of this suit, Defendant Cornyn serves in the US Senate on the following

Senate Committees: judiciary, intelligence, and finance. Defendant Cornyn serves on the Senate

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security. Defendant Cornyn’s role in

those committees necessarily involves him in cyber, election, and national security issues.

Twitter’s Essential Nature:

7. Launched in 2006, Twitter serves as a networking and social media platform for tweeting

(the posting of messages on the internet of up to 280 characters), for reading the tweets of others,

and for forwarding or sharing the tweets of others (retweeting). The service is free of cost and

boasts a monthly user volume of over 300 million. Since April 2007, Plaintiff Tod Beardsley

(hereinafter “Beardsley”) has used his Twitter handle, @TODB, to tweet, read tweets, and

retweet. Plaintiff has 7,441 followers, other users who read his tweets and share tweets, many of

whom engage in political expression via Twitter. The Twitter feed is what the public and Twitter

users view. It is controlled by the account holder who can retweet a communication sent from a

Twitter account that follows the account holder. It is possible to find and view tweets from

Twitter accounts not followed by a user by searching topics, but unless one Twitter user follows

another and vice-versa, the first user’s tweets will not appear in the second user’s account. The

same occurs when one user blocks another user.

8. Plaintiff Beardsley uses his Twitter feed for personal and professional reasons. Plaintiff

Beardsley engages in political expression; stayes informed of current events, elected officials’

positions, and candidate platforms; and informes the public of national security issues, election

security, and cyber security. Politicians and elected officials use Twitter to campaign and share

3

Case 1:20-cv-00456-LY Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 3 of 9
information with their constituents, who in turn share information as well as praise and criticize

their government and its policies.

9. A Twitter account holder can restrict access to anyone at any time without explanation or

warning. Defendant Cornyn failed to explain why Plaintiff was blocked from Defendant

Cornyn's’ Twitter account.

10. Twitter, because of its structure and popularity, is highly compatible with and often used

for openly expressive activity. Such expressive activity has and continues to include open and

critical discussion of government conduct and policy, elected government officials, and other

public figures. 

Senator Cornyn’s Twitter Feed is Public:

11. Defendant, Senator Cornyn, has a Twitter feed, the identity for which is “@JohnCornyn”

The John Cornyn Twitter feed can be accessed at https://twitter.com/johncornyn/ by anyone,

including those who do not have a Twitter account of their own. Plaintiff, cannot tweet anything

to @JohnCornyn until Defendant Cornyn removes his block.

12. Defendant Cornyn has encouraged and permitted the public and his constituents to stay

informed and share their views with Defendant Cornyn through his Twitter account. 

13. Defendant Cornyn willingly and knowingly created and configured his Twitter feed to be

open to the public and allow other Twitter users to interact openly with the page, its content, and

fellow page visitors through tweeting, reading tweets, and retweeting. He did so in his capacity

as a US Senator for the State of Texas.

14. Senator Cornyn was fully aware of Twitter’s high compatibility with and use for openly

expressive activity when creating and making public the Senator John Cornyn Twitter account.

Likewise, he knowingly and willingly created the Twitter account to encourage and permit

4

Case 1:20-cv-00456-LY Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 4 of 9
public expression and interaction on matters of public concern (including pending legislation) to

over 273,000 other Twitter followers. 

15. Senator Cornyn used this Twitter feed while he was in Austin, Travis County, Texas as a

Senator to tweet and retweet topics including: the law, the Constitution, rights, federal

legislation, federal policy, elections, Cornyn’s own campaign, criticism and praise of his

colleagues, and defense of his blocking election security legislation in 2019. The March 4, 2020

@JohnCornyn Twitter feed reads, “Try voting during 10 day early voting period. As of Friday,

which was the last day of early voting in the 2020 primary, a total of 1,113,726 people voted in

person and by mail in Texas’ 10 largest counties — 12% of registered voters.” [Twitter,

@JohnCornyn]. Defendant Cornyn, upon information and belief, made decisions and executed

decisions about who would be blocked or banned from this Twitter page while he was in Austin,

Travis County, Texas, working as a US Senator for the State of Texas. While in Travis County,

Plaintiff Beardsley attempted to retweet a post from another elected official and saw that Plaintiff

Beardsley was blocked from @JohnCornyn. Plaintiff Beardsley attempted to resolve this mater

in a letter sent a letter to Defendant Cornyn. As of the date of this filing, Defendant Cornyn

failed to respond to the letter.

16. Some of Defendant Cornyn’s publicly accessible Twitter feed is attached and is hereby

incorporated by reference as Exhibit 1. In it, Defendant Cornyn informs his followers of his

activities in the US Senate. Likewise, he updates his thousands of Twitter followers on the status

of legislation. The posts in Exhibit 1 are those which may be viewed by literally anyone online,

regardless of whether the person follows @JohnCornyn on Twitter. It is completely public.

17. Defendant Cornyn runs his page as a medium of US Senate information for anyone who

wishes to follow it. He provides legislative updates, as well as answering and interacting with

5

Case 1:20-cv-00456-LY Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 5 of 9
those who comment on those political tweets. Exhibit 1 is an example of how Defendant Cornyn

uses his Twitter account to update the electorate with legislative news and is hereby incorporated

by reference. This Twitter account is the only one for Senator Cornyn that is public. It is not a

personal account whereby people request and confirm ‘friends’ and privacy may be set to where

only ‘friends’ may view it. It is a Page similar to that of a business, organization, or celebrity

which is public for all Twitter users to follow. 

Senator Cornyn Blocks & Bans Constituents Who Disagree with Him:

18. While Plaintiff Beardsley can see the non-user public version of @JohnCornyn on

Twitter, Plaintiff cannot tweet or retweet to @JohnCornyn. Other features on Twitter are not

available to users who are blocked or users without an account. 

19. Defendant Cornyn is in a reelection campaign this year and as such is more sensitive to

criticism than in other years. Such criticism could yield loss in campaign donations or loss in

political support and votes. Blocking constituent criticism and public debate in order to win an

election is offensive to our representative democracy.

20. It is unknown how many other followers of @JohnCornyn were blocked or banned for

political dissent or for actual legitimate reasons. 

Causes of Action

21. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all facts alleged in the preceding paragraphs,

and to the extent any facts are added below, incorporates them into their factual allegations.

First Amendment Violations:

22. Defendant Cornyn engaged in viewpoint-based discrimination and censorship of

Plaintiff’s speech about matters of public concern in a public forum, violating’ Plaintiff’s rights

under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

6

Case 1:20-cv-00456-LY Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 6 of 9
23. Defendant Cornyn was aware or should have been aware that his actions were

unconstitutional. It is clearly established that a government official cannot censor or restrict

speech, or punish a speaker, based on the viewpoint expressed, regardless of the type of forum.

Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829-30 (1995); R.A.V. v. St.

Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 391-92 (1992).

24. Defendant Cornyn has knowingly and willfully censored and punished Plaintiff

Beardsley, and others, with a reckless and callous disregard for constitutional rights.

25. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Cornyn’s actions, Plaintiff has been

prevented from communicating with Defendant Cornyn and his constituents about matters of

public concern, restricting Plaintiff’s ability to participate in peaceful online assembly and

petition for the redress of grievances. Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 618

(1984). 

26. At the same time, Defendant Cornyn has violated the right of the thousands of people

who follow his Twitter feed to receive information that could have been provided by Plaintiff

Beardsley. See Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762-63 (1972).

27. Defendant Cornyn has violated Plaintiff’s right to expressive association by

electronically separating Plaintiff from the thousands of people who follow his Twitter feed. See

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).

28. Defendant Cornyn should have known that he may not constitutionally sanction someone

for associating with a group about which he does not like or approve, as the law is clearly

established that mere membership with an unpopular organization may not be sanctioned. See

Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203 (1961).

7

Case 1:20-cv-00456-LY Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 7 of 9
29. Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief.

Plaintiff wants to participate in the expressive activity on Defendant Cornyn’s Twitter feed to (a)

disseminate information on matters of public concern, (b) peacefully assemble online, (c)

petition Defendant Cornyn for the redress of grievances, and (d) receive information on a matter

of public concern from the other people that Defendant Cornyn has hidden, deleted, blocked and

banned.

30. Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. There is substantial public

interest in ensuring that Defendant Cornyn ceases from engaging in viewpoint-based

discrimination and censorship in the public forum he created on his Twitter feed.

31. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment against Defendant Cornyn that what he has done

on his Twitter feed violates the rights enumerated in this complaint. A declaratory judgment will

resolve the dispute between the parties and ensure compliance with the First Amendment as part

of the democratic process. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendant Cornyn:

A. created a public forum with his Twitter feed;

B. violated Plaintiff’s right to receive information by hiding, deleting, blocking, and

banning other people from commenting on his Twitter feed;

C. violated Plaintiff’s right to speak on a matter of public concern by hiding,

deleting, blocking, or banning their posts on his Twitter feed;

D. violated Plaintiff's right to peacefully assemble online by electronically separating

Plaintiff from the thousands of people who follow Defendant Cornyn on his

Twitter feed;

E. violated Plaintiff’s right to seek a redress of grievances by blocking and banning

them from his Twitter feed;

8

Case 1:20-cv-00456-LY Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 8 of 9
F. violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by engaging in viewpoint-based

discrimination by hiding, deleting, blocking, or banning their comments from his

Twitter feed.

Relief

32. Plaintiff requests Judgment against Defendant Cornyn as follows:

A. Declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201; 

B. Injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983;

C. Reasonable costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988(b)

and expert fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988(c); and

D. All other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled.

 Respectfully Submitted, 

The Law Office of George C. Lobb

George C. Lobb, Esq.

SBN: 24042928

1108 Lavaca Street #110

Austin, Texas 78701

Tel: 512-215-6011

Fax: 512-425-0877

Info@LobbLaw.com

 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

9

Case 1:20-cv-00456-LY Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 9 of 9