A federal appeals court has thrown out journalist Alex Berenson's lawsuit over the permanent suspension of his Twitter account in 2021, ruling that the case he built around an alleged government and industry conspiracy does not hold up in law. The decision in Berenson v. Gottlieb, issued by the Second Circuit on October 20, 2026, affirms a district court ruling that had dismissed several defendants in 2025.
Berenson, an independent journalist and author of a book about the COVID-19 pandemic, was an active and vocal critic of pandemic policy on Twitter. His follower count rose from about 7,000 in January 2020 to more than 229,000 by March 2021. He alleged that members of the Biden Administration conspired with Pfizer executives, including board member and former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb and chief executive Albert Bourla, to pressure Twitter to suspend his account and mute his voice as a leading vaccine skeptic.
The suspension itself followed Twitter's five-strike policy on COVID-19 misinformation, announced on March 1, 2021. Under that policy, a first strike brought a warning, the second and third strikes each brought a 12-hour account lock, a fourth strike brought a 7-day lock, and a fifth strike brought permanent suspension. Berenson received strikes in March, July, and August 2021, and his account was permanently suspended with the fifth strike on August 28, 2021. He also pointed to assurances from Brandon Borrman, Twitter's vice president of global communications, who had told him the points he was raising should not be an issue and that he would try to ensure Berenson got a heads-up before any action was taken.
Judges Pierre Leval, Richard Wesley, and Joseph Bianco rejected both of Berenson's main claims. On his federal civil rights conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985, the court held that Americans who had chosen not to receive a COVID-19 vaccine do not form the kind of protected class that statute requires. The judges called it exactly the sort of group the Supreme Court warned against in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic: people defined only by a shared desire to engage in conduct the defendants allegedly disfavor. The court also found that Berenson's own complaint described him being specifically targeted as a vocal critic, rather than showing class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus.
The tortious interference claim fared no better. Under New York law, that claim requires an actual breach of contract, and the court found none. Twitter's Terms of Service said the company could suspend or terminate an account at any time for any or no reason. Neither the five-strike policy nor Borrman's remarks modified those terms, the court held, describing the remarks as too vague to change the contract: at most, they suggested Borrman would try to notify Berenson, not that no action would ever be taken. The panel also called the reasoning of a 2022 California ruling in Berenson's separate case against Twitter, which had partly let his claims proceed, unpersuasive.
For X users, the ruling is a clear reminder of where the legal ground sits today. A platform's terms can reserve a broad right to suspend accounts, private assurances from staff do not easily rewrite those terms, and claims that officials pressured a platform face steep hurdles in court. The account at the center of the case belonged to the Twitter era, but the principles the Second Circuit applied still shape how moderation disputes on X are likely to end.