The Supreme Court explained when public officials can prevent critical constituents from their personal profiles without breaking their constitutional protections in a unanimous decision Friday.
After listening to appeals of two conflicting rulings — one filed against school board members in Southern California and another filed against the city manager of Port Huron, Mich. — the justices did not give a definite solution to the disputes and instead sent both cases back to lower courts to apply the new legal test.
In a unanimous decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court said state officials cannot block constituents on their personal pages when they have “actual authority to speak on behalf of the State on a particular matter” and “purported to exercise that authority in the relevant posts.”
“For social-media activity to constitute state action, an official must not only have state authority—he must also claim to use it,” Barrett wrote.
The case represented the latest battle over public officials’ social media presence when they combine their official and personal roles.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard the Michigan case, sided with the city manager, James Freed, who deleted comments on his Facebook page left by a resident and blocked several of the resident’s profiles. The resident, Kevin Lindke, had criticized Freed over his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, court filings indicate.
“Importantly, Lindke must show more than that Freed had some authority to communicate with residents on behalf of Port Huron. The alleged censorship must be connected to speech on a matter within Freed’s bailiwick,” Barrett wrote.
In October, the justices seemed inclined to side with the city manager during oral arguments. Several justices raised concerns that an overly broad rule could chill the speech of elected officials who are effectively always on the clock.
Their decision does not establish a definite win for either side, though it gives Lindke another chance at getting the city manager’s actions ruled unconstitutional. After issuing its new test in the Michigan case, the justices similarly sent the California case back to a lower court.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard the California case, said Poway, Calif., school board members Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane violated the First Amendment after blocking constituents on their Facebook pages and O’Conner-Ratcliff’s account on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.
“Because the approach that the Ninth Circuit applied is different from the one we have explained in Lindke, we cancel the judgment below and send the case to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in that case,” read an unsigned opinion issued in that case.
The Biden administration supported the officials in both cases, arguing in favor of their blocks. The officials were also supported by a bipartisan group of 17 states and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The American Civil Liberties Union and a group of First Amendment clinics supported the constituents.
Both situations came after a Supreme Court ruling to disregard due to lack of importance a legal case about previous President Trump stopping users on his X account.
