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.
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.
