"Nonetheless, this case is a
cautionary tale about the possible pitfalls of judges engaging
in social media activity relating to pending cases, and we
reiterate the importance of maintaining the appearance of
propriety both on and off the bench."
Well, I'm not exactly sure that it's an entirely cautionary tale, since the Ninth Circuit affirms the decision below notwithstanding the judge's (alleged) Twitter account and "forwarded" tweets about the case he was in the midst of adjudicating.
(I say "alleged" because the judge at issue doesn't sign his actual name to the Twitter account, so it's just "alleged" that it's his.)