How did Knight v. Trump become Biden v. Knight?
<p>I've read <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2597159087908243157&amp;q=Biden&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4,60&amp;as_ylo=2021" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Justice Thomas's opinion in Biden v. Knight First Amendment...</a>, which seems to reverse <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2616752692781028544&amp;q=Biden&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4,60&amp;as_ylo=2021" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Knight v. Trump</a>.    I'm trying to understand how this came about.   I gather Donald Trump was unhappy with the decision in Knight v. Trump, and so an appeal makes sense, but <em>how did Joe Biden's name appear in the decision</em>?</p>
<p>How do I find a copy of the petition asking the supreme court to review the case?</p>

<p><a href="https://casetext.com/case/knight-first-amendment-inst-at-columbia-univ-v-trump-1" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Knight Institute v. Trump</em></a> was a First Amendment case. Because Donald Trump is only obligated to adhere to the First Amendment insofar as he is a government actor, the Knight Institute sued him <em>in his official capacity</em>, i.e., it sued the President of the United States, who at that time happened to be Donald Trump.</p>
<p>Therefore, a change in officeholder does not change the fact that the holder of the office is a party to the suit. Under the <a href="https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-28-appendix/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure/rules-of-civil-procedure-for-the-united-states-district-courts-1/title-iv-parties/rule-25-substitution-of-parties" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rule 25(d)</a> of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>An action does not abate when a public officer who is a party in an official capacity dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office while the action is pending. The officer's successor is automatically substituted as a party.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This sort of thing is therefore incredibly common, as there are constantly countless lawsuits against high-ranking government officials who are subject removal and replacement at any time, especially around the time of a change in administration.</p>
<p>In case you're wondering, the party names were flipped when the case went to the Supreme Court because Trump was not technically filing an appeal, but rather filing a new lawsuit asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ of certiorari, which directs the lower court to send it a certified record of the case for review. <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-197/150726/20200820102824291_Knight%20First%20Amendment%20Inst.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Trump's petition is here.</a></p>

<p>Available documents are <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-197.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>. <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-197/166744/20210119182650736_20-197%20Knight%20Munsingwear%20supp%20brief.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This</a> is petitioner's last brief, which observes that &quot;Respondents sued President Donald J. Trump solely in  his  official  capacity&quot;. There was a change of administration the following day, which mooted the case, so petitioners argued that &quot;Biden will have no ability to control the use of Donald J. Trump’s personal Twitter account&quot;, therefore &quot;the Court should follow its established  practice  of  granting  certiorari  and  vacating  the  judgment below&quot;, which is what happened. The initial question raised is</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Whether  the  First  Amendment  deprives  a  government official of
his right to control his personal Twitter account by blocking
third-party accounts if he uses that personal account in part to
announce official actions and policies.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There are a lot of gaps that you can fill in from the docket files above.</p>

first-amendment us-supreme-court