Major Developments in Richards v. X Corp: Sanctions Motions, TRO Responses, and DOJ representing Trump - by Lisa Richards and Artificial Intelligence

 

Case Update: 3:25-cv-916 in the Northern District of Texas

Significant developments have emerged in Thomas Richards' federal lawsuit against X Corp and Donald Trump, with new legal maneuvers highlighting the escalating nature of this First Amendment case.

DOJ Takes Unprecedented Step

In a highly unusual move, the Department of Justice has entered an appearance to represent Donald Trump in this case - despite the fact that Richards specifically sued Trump in his individual capacity, not his official capacity as President. Assistant United States Attorney Kenneth Coffin has made an appearance as counsel for Trump.

This creates a profound constitutional contradiction that strengthens Richards' underlying claims. Trump's legal response, filed by DOJ attorneys, argues that all of Richards' claims against Trump are based entirely on his official presidential actions - including Executive Orders, creation of Executive Branch commissions, and official communications. Yet Trump was sued in his individual capacity, and DOJ policy typically prohibits representing officials for personal conduct outside their duties.

The DOJ's representation effectively confirms that Trump's coordination with X Corp was conducted in his official capacity as President - exactly what Richards alleges violates the First Amendment through government entanglement with private platform censorship.

This unprecedented DOJ involvement adds another layer to the government entanglement that Richards argues violates the First Amendment.

The Freeman Perjury Scandal

A stunning example of obstruction unfolded when Dan Freeman, Trump's Director of Security at Mar-a-Lago, engaged in what can only be described as deliberate deception. After initially confirming his authority to accept service on Trump's behalf and doing so on July 11, 2025, Freeman suddenly reversed course on July 22, claiming in an email to Mr. Richards’ counsel, Lisa Weingarten Richards, "I am not authorized to accept legal documents on behalf of Donald Trump."

The lie was exposed within hours. On July 23, 2025 - just 15 hours and 54 minutes after his false denial - Freeman accepted service from a professional process server without any objection or claim of lack of authority. This blatant contradiction revealed the coordinated nature of the obstruction.

Emergency Sanctions Motion Filed

Richards' legal team immediately filed an Emergency Motion for Sanctions against both Trump and Freeman for perjurious obstruction of the federal court's expedited service order. The motion seeks:

• Contempt citations under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) for both defendants
• $9,140 in attorney fees and costs for the obstruction
• Criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney for investigation
• Adverse inference that Trump systematically directs obstruction of judicial proceedings

This represents a serious escalation, as courts take obstruction of their orders extremely seriously, particularly when it involves false statements designed to delay proceedings.

TRO Responses Filed: Defendants Push Back Hard

Both X Corp and Trump have now responded to Richards' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, filed July 10, 2025. These responses came after Judge Starr's July 22 order requiring both defendants to respond within seven days - an order that sparked the Freeman obstruction incident when Trump's team attempted to delay service.

Trump's Defense Strategy: Presidential Immunity and Individual Capacity Loophole

Trump's DOJ-represented response presents a sophisticated multi-layered defense that reveals the constitutional complexity of this case:

The Individual Capacity Paradox: Trump's DOJ-filed response creates a constitutional contradiction by arguing that Richards cannot seek injunctive relief in an individual capacity suit, while simultaneously claiming absolute presidential immunity because all alleged actions were official presidential conduct. This admission that the challenged conduct was performed "as the President, acting as the President" within "the outer bounds of his duties" directly supports Richards' government entanglement theory.

Absolute Presidential Immunity Claims: Trump's DOJ attorneys argue that absolute presidential immunity bars all claims because they are "entirely premised on actions within the outer perimeter of the President's duties." The filing specifically identifies Trump's Executive Orders, Religious Liberty Commission actions, DOGE creation, and AI policy directives as official conduct. This admission directly confirms Richards' allegations that Trump used presidential authority to coordinate platform censorship.

The Plausibility Attack: Trump's DOJ attorneys characterize Richards' allegations as "implausible," specifically targeting claims about Trump and Musk staging "an elaborate public 'feud'" in response to government surveillance of Richards' emailed litigation plans. The DOJ filing dismisses these as "far-fetched allegations" and "fanciful" theories involving "Vatican coordination." However, they notably do not deny the underlying surveillance capabilities or coordination - only attacking the characterization of the public feud as staged.

X Corp's Defense: Section 230 and Terms of Service Shield

X Corp's response focuses on multiple immunity defenses while attacking the state action theory:

Section 230 Immunity: X Corp argues comprehensive immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, claiming protection for all editorial decisions about whether to publish Richards' content. They argue all three prongs are met: X Corp is an interactive computer service, Richards' content comes from another information content provider, and Richards seeks to treat X Corp as a publisher.

Terms of Service Defense: X Corp points to contractual provisions giving them broad rights to "remove or refuse to distribute any Content" and "suspend or terminate users without liability" for "any reason or no reason." They argue disclaimer and limitation of liability clauses bar all of Richards' claims.

First Amendment Shield: Citing the Supreme Court's recent Moody v. NetChoice decision, X Corp argues they have First Amendment protection for their "expressive choices" about what content to display, making them immune from being compelled to publish Richards' content.

State Action Challenge: X Corp attacks the core theory that Musk's government role makes X Corp a state actor, noting the Court previously found this argument "novel" and "far from clear." They argue Richards fails to identify any X Corp policymaker or official policy for Section 1983 purposes.

The Broader Constitutional Stakes

This case continues to raise unprecedented questions about the intersection of government power and social media censorship. With Musk's extensive government contracts totaling $15.4 billion, his $300 million investment in Trump's election, and his ongoing advisory role in the administration, Richards argues this creates an unprecedented level of government entanglement with X Corp's content moderation decisions.

The DOJ's decision to represent Trump personally, combined with the Freeman obstruction incident, particularly highlights how Trump's operation appears willing to engage in coordinated obstruction even of basic court procedures - raising questions about their approach to the substantive constitutional issues at the heart of this case.

Unprecedented Legal Territory

The defendants' responses reveal the novel constitutional ground this case breaks, while paradoxically strengthening Richards' core claims:

• Government Entanglement Confirmed: DOJ's representation combined with Trump's immunity claims based on official conduct validates Richards' theory that presidential authority was used to coordinate platform censorship
• Constitutional Contradiction: Trump cannot simultaneously claim individual capacity immunity from injunctive relief while asserting presidential immunity for official conduct - this logical inconsistency supports the state action allegations
• Digital Rights Evolution: The case tests whether traditional state action doctrine applies to modern government-tech relationships involving contracts, investments, and advisory roles

What's Next

The court now faces multiple urgent matters requiring careful constitutional analysis:

1. Ruling on the sanctions motion against Trump and Freeman for perjurious obstruction
2. Evaluating the TRO responses from both defendants on complex immunity and state action questions
3. Addressing unprecedented DOJ representation of Trump's personal conduct
4. Determining the underlying First Amendment claims about coordinated censorship in the digital age

This case continues to break new legal ground in the evolving landscape of digital rights and government accountability in the social media age. The court's handling of these intertwined constitutional, procedural, and technological questions may establish precedents affecting government-platform relationships for years to come.

For complete court documents and filings: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69885455/richards-v-x-corp/