WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Friday that in some circumstances citizens can sue public officials for blocking them on social media platforms, citing former President Donald Trump's controversial and colorful Twitter usage. and rendered judgment in a pair of lawsuits.
The court ruled unanimously that officials could be considered “state actors” when using social media and could therefore face lawsuits if they block or mute members of the public. handed down the verdict.
In two cases, the justices rule that a dispute involving a Southern California school board member and a Michigan city manager should be sent back to a lower court for new legal tests to be applied. was handed down.
In a decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court acknowledged that “it may be difficult to determine whether speech is official or private” based on how social media accounts are used.
Courts have ruled that social media actions can be considered acts of the state if the official in question “has actual authority to speak on behalf of the state” and “purports to exercise that authority.” The court held that
Although public servants in both cases have low profile, the ruling applies to all public servants who use social media to interact with the public.
During oral arguments in October, Trump's use of Twitter (before it was renamed X) was frequently mentioned as the justices considered the practical implications.
These cases raised the question of whether public officials' posts and other social media activities constitute part of government functions. In ruling that it can, the court found that blocking someone from following an official is a government act that can give rise to constitutional claims.
But the court made clear that conditions must be met for the claim to proceed, with Barrett noting that government employees are also “private citizens with their own constitutional rights.”
She added that whether a claim can proceed is determined based on the nature of the conduct in question, not simply whether the person is a government official.
Barrett said factors such as whether the account is marked as official and whether the official account exercises legal authority when making public announcements may be considered.
“In some circumstances, the content and features of the posts may render the plaintiff's claims frivolous,” she added.
Trump himself was sued during his presidency for frequently using his Twitter account for official announcements, and courts ruled against him. However, when he retired in January 2021, the lawsuit was abandoned as an issue.
Twitter had disabled Trump's account at the time, but the company's new owner, Elon Musk, reversed course as part of a major overhaul that included changing the site's name. However, in other disputes, courts have reached different conclusions.
Under the Supreme Court's new ruling, it seems likely that Trump would have lost the earlier case. Barrett briefly touched on the Trump incident in a footnote, pointing out that if User X blocks someone, the blocked person will not be able to see any of the user's posts, including public announcements.
“The court has ruled that public officials must comply with the First Amendment when they use their personal social media accounts to carry out their official duties, as former President Trump did with his Twitter account,” attorney Katie Farrow said. I am pleased that this has been recognized.” at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which was suing Trump.
The California lawsuit alleges that two members of the Poway Unified School District Board of Trustees, Michelle O'Connor Ratcliffe and TJ Zane, made comments on the Facebook page of parents Christopher Garnier and Kimberly Garnier in 2017. It happened after I blocked . Mr O'Connor-Ratcliffe also blocked Mr Christopher from speaking. Garnier declined to reply to his own Twitter post. Zane has since resigned.
The San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the couple in 2022, upholding a similar ruling by a federal judge in the Southern District of California. The appeals court concluded that the elected official was acting in his official capacity.
The controversy in Michigan began in March 2020, when James Freed, who was appointed Port Huron city manager and describes himself as a “public figure” on his Facebook page, responded to the coronavirus pandemic. It started with a post to the city about information about the city's efforts to do so. After resident Kevin Lindke posted a comment criticizing the city's response, Freed blocked him.
Freed claimed that the now-inactive Facebook page was a personal page that he used to share photos of his family and comment on his daily activities. In June 2022, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's ruling, holding that Fried was not acting in an official capacity and therefore his Facebook activity did not constitute a state action. Agreed.
Freed's page differed somewhat from the page at issue in the school board's lawsuit, as it contained more personal content and was less clear whether it was an official page.
The court is tackling a series of social media-related free speech issues in its current term, which ends in June.
