"While we must recognize, and are sensitive to, the president's personal First Amendment rights, he can not exercise those rights in a way that infringes the corresponding First Amendment rights of those who have criticized him", she wrote.
"A declaratory judgment should be sufficient, as no government official - including the President - is above the law, and all government officials are presumed to follow the law as has been declared", Buchwald wrote. Trump had argued that a court doesn't have the power to issue a direct order to a sitting president.
Shortly after being blocked, she told Time Magazine that "it's like FDR took my radio away", referring to Franklin Delano Roosevelt - the World War Two-era president who spoke directly to Americans with his so-called fireside chats.
In reaching her conclusion, the judge dismissed a range of counterarguments put forward by Trump's legal team, including that the account was set up in 2009 - long before he became president - by pointing out that if a military base was decommissioned and turned into a public park, or a private airport turned into a public one, then the current usage would be the relevant one to consider.
Jameel Jaffer, the Knight Institute's executive director, said in a release that his organization was pleased. "The president's practice of blocking critics on Twitter is pernicious and unconstitutional, and we hope this ruling will bring it to an end".
The ruling, which was instituted by Columbia University in 2017, comes as debates are widening about how to bridge the gap between public officials' rights to privacy and citizens' rights to free speech and demand for accountability. Focusing on Hogan Gudley, one of the White House press operation's lesser known figures, Leibovich examines what it's like to speak for a president who often seems unconcerned with the truth, and what cost the association with Trump will have on his aides' future job prospects. I have a voice and a platform to use it, and I would rather challenge him on every false and misleading statement than stay silent. Blocking detractors is more than just ignoring their comments, she said.More news: M&S reveals another year of falling profits
More news: Syria's Assad meets with Putin in Russian Federation
More news: Veteran Brexiteer Blames London for Failing to Ensure Security on Irish Border
"Defendants have made the account accessible to all, taking advantage of Twitter's interactive platform to directly engage the President's 33 million followers".
The claimants say the president violated freedom of speech by blocking them followers from his account for posting messages he disliked.
However, if you click on a Donald Trump tweet, you'll see a long list of replies to that tweet listed underneath.
The White House has yet to comment on the judge's ruling. In July, a federal court in Virginia said the chair of a county board of supervisors had violated the First Amendment rights of a constituent by blocking him from the county's Facebook page.
After a hearing this year, the judge had suggested that Trump mute rather than block some of his critics.
Buchwald agreed with the plaintiffs' contention that the discussions arising from Trump's tweets should be considered a public forum. The New York judge, appointed in 1999, offered a solution that Trump simply "mute" certain accounts.