SCOTUS clarifies when public officials can block constituents on social media

Mar 15, 2024

Lauren Taylor Reporter

By Lauren Taylor (Reporter), Jake Maslo (Video Editor)

This report was created with support from enhanced software.

Bias Distribution Powered by Ground News™

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that public officials can block individuals on social media under certain circumstances. This ruling addresses critical First Amendment questions in an era where officials frequently interact with constituents online.

The ruling arose from two cases — one in Michigan and one in California — where constituents were blocked by officials on Facebook for expressing criticism.

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

In Michigan, Port Huron City Manager James Freed blocked a resident who criticized pandemic policies. In California, school board members blocked residents for making repetitive comments. Lower courts initially sided with the constituents.

The Supreme Court has now established a clearer standard for determining when public officials are acting as state actors online and when they maintain control over their private social media presence.

According to the new standard, an official’s social media activity is considered state action only if they have actual authority to represent the government and purportedly exercise that authority on social media, including on personal accounts. This implies that social media users may sue public officials for blocking them if this criteria is met.

The cases will be remanded to lower courts for further consideration.

Tags: California, Facebook, First Amendment, Michigan, Social Media, Supreme Court

[LAUREN TAYLOR]

IN A UNANIMOUS DECISION, THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT PUBLIC OFFICIALS CAN BLOCK INDIVIDUALS ON SOCIAL MEDIA UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

THE RULING ADDRESSED VITAL FIRST AMENDMENT QUESTIONS IN AN ERA WHERE PUBLIC OFFICIALS FREQUENTLY ENGAGE WITH CONSTITUENTS THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS.

THIS RULING STEMMED FROM TWO CASES -ONE IN MICHIGAN AND ONE IN CALIFORNIA- INVOLVING CONSTITUENTS WHO WERE BLOCKED BY OFFICIALS ON FACEBOOK FOR BEING CRITICAL.

IN ONE CASE, PORT HURON CITY MANAGER JAMES FREED BLOCKED A RESIDENT WHO CRITICIZED PANDEMIC POLICIES. IN ANOTHER, SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS BLOCKED RESIDENTS MAKING REPETITIVE COMMENTS. LOWER COURTS RULED IN FAVOR OF THE CONSTITUENTS.

THE COURT ESTABLISHED A CLEARER STANDARD FOR DETERMINING WHEN PUBLIC OFFICIALS ACT AS STATE ACTORS ONLINE AND WHEN THEY HAVE CONTROL OVER THEIR PRIVATE SOCIAL MEDIA PRESENCE.

UNDER THE NEW STANDARD, AN OFFICIAL’S SOCIAL MEDIA ACTIVITY IS CONSIDERED STATE ACTION ONLY IF THE OFFICIAL HAD ACTUAL AUTHORITY TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT AND PURPORTED TO EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY ON SOCIAL MEDIA, INCLUDING ON THEIR PERSONAL ACCOUNTS. THIS MEANS THAT SOCIAL MEDIA USERS MAY SUE PUBLIC OFFICIALS FOR BLOCKING THEM IF THIS TEST IS MET.

THE CASES WILL NOW RETURN TO LOWER COURTS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.

SCOTUS clarifies when public officials can block constituents on social media

Bias Distribution

Untracked Bias

Bias Distribution