The U.S Supreme Court ruled that public officials may be sued for blocking users on social media, provided certain conditions are met. According to the court, a public official can only be sued if they post about state matters and have been authorized to do so. The official’s blocking of users is considered “state action” under 42 U.S.C § 1983.
This ruling came in response to two specific cases brought before the court, where public officials were accused of infringing First Amendment rights after they blocked social media users. The first of these cases involved Port Huron city manager, James Freed, and Kevin Lindke in Lindke v. Freed. The second was between school board trustees Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff, T.J Zane and Christopher and Kimberly Garnier, known as O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier.
The ruling emerged in response to a circuit split, with the Sixth Circuit and Ninth Circuit reaching different conclusions on similar cases. The Sixth Circuit ruled that James Freed’s social media activity did not constitute state action as he used his page in a personal capacity. Conversely, the Ninth Circuit held that O’Connor-Ratcliff and Zane could be held liable for violating First Amendment rights by carrying out their official duties through their social media pages.
According to the court, merely identifying oneself as a public official on social media does not automatically prohibit officials from blocking other users. A unanimous court, led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the Lindke case, found that a public official must have tangible authority rooted in written law or established custom to constitute “state action.”
However, the implications of blocking a user on social media platforms like Facebook, which prevents the user from commenting on a page’s posts, was noted. The court emphasized the need for separating personal and professional social media usage, highlighting the potential liability for mixing these roles.
The two cases, O’Connor-Ratcliff and Lindke, have been sent back to the Ninth and Sixth Circuits, respectively. The appeals courts will apply the Supreme Court’s new test to decide whether Freed, O’Connor-Ratcliff, and Zane violated social media users’ First Amendment rights and can be sued for the same.