SCOTUS clarifies when public officials can block constituents on social media

[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.