A U.S. district judge ruled yesterday that President Donald Trump legally cannot block certain users on Twitter based on their political views as it violates the First Amendment rights of his constituents.

In presiding over what is clearly the first legal proceeding ever to revolve around the President's social media habits, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of New York’s Southern District found that Trump cannot blockTwitter users from following or reading his commentaries on @realDonaldTrump simply because he disagrees with online critics, as social media accounts run by elected or appointed government officials are deemed to be public forums.

Essentially, because Trump uses Twitter to announce policy decisions, such as the ban on transgender people in the military, it is vital for the public to be able to access @realDonaldTrump.

“We hold that portions of the @realDonaldTrump account -- the ‘interactive space’ where Twitter users may directly engage with the content of the President’s tweets -- are properly analyzed under the ‘public forum’ doctrines set forth by the Supreme Court, that such space is a designated public forum, and that the blocking of the plaintiffs based on their political speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment,” wrote Judge Buchwald.

While blocking may be unconstitutional, the judge suggested that if the president does not wish to hear dissenting opinions online, he can simply just block these uses, and maintain the sanctity of his digital safe space.

BREAKING: President Trump's blocking of critics on Twitter is unconstitutional, court rules. https://t.co/8fZ6cdKbAL pic.twitter.com/47a0yNYYkb

— Knight 1st Amendment (@knightcolumbia) May 23, 2018

Filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute in July 2017, the suit named several other officials within the Trump administration, including Dan Scovino, the White House social media director, and Hope Hicks, former White House communications director. The organization represented the interests of at least seven parties who were blocked by Trump after foolishly responding to their President on a public forum: University of Maryland sociology professor Philip Cohen; Holly Figueroa, a political organizer and songwriter from Seattle; Dr. Eugene Gu of Vanderbilt University Medical Center; Police Officer Brandon Neely from Houston, Texas; Joseph Papp, a former professional cyclist and anti-doping advocate; New York comedy writer Nick Pappas New York; and political writer Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza.

Within the lawsuit, seven blocked tweets from the following users: University of Maryland sociology professor Philip Cohen; Holly Figueroa, a political organizer and songwriter from Seattle; Dr. Eugene Gu of Vanderbilt University Medical Center; Police Officer Brandon Neely from Houston, Texas; Joseph Papp, a former professional cyclist and anti-doping advocate; New York comedy writer Nick Pappas New York; and political writer Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza.

The seven blocked users expressed their excitement to once again enjoy the president’s many (sigh) many tweets today, announcing that they sued the president and won.

I sued the President, and I won. https://t.co/hE3rWcxIAY

— RPBP (@rpbp) May 23, 2018

We won our First Amendment lawsuit against President Trump https://t.co/45sKheEduC pic.twitter.com/AAS1TQy2yh

— Philip N Cohen (@familyunequal) May 24, 2018

There is going to come a day when I tell my grandkids about the time that I along with 6 patriotic Americans took the "President" to court and won

— Brandon Neely (@BrandonTXNeely) May 23, 2018

We sued the President and won.

So much winning. https://t.co/QaThOtjG3p

— Nick Jack Pappas (@Pappiness) May 23, 2018

In addition to reporters and political writers from, but also celebrities like Chrissy Teigen, who tweeted about being freed from Twitter jail from the comfort of her couch.

well well well we meet again @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/WajEXiAQVi

— christine teigen (@chrissyteigen) May 23, 2018

While the ruling instantly made the rounds in the news and social media, the White House has been curiously quiet on this matter so far, with the only official statement coming from a Justice Department spokeswoman who said "we respectfully disagree with the court's decision and are considering our next steps."