- SCOTUS on Friday established new rules for the social media accounts of public officials.
- The judges ruled there are some circumstances in which blocking a user could violate their rights.
- If an elected official clearly labels their account as a personal one, the rules are more lenient.
The US Supreme Court on Friday handed down a decision establishing new rules for how public officials must behave on social media.
In a unanimous decision in the Lindke v. Freed case, SCOTUS established a new framework for when the official social media accounts of government representatives can block users from accessing or replying to their posts. Accounts clearly marked as personal, even if run by a state official, are granted more leniency and protection under the First Amendment.
The decision established a test for determining whether an official's account falls under the rule, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett writing for the court that the official must both (1) possess "actual authority to speak on the State's behalf on a particular matter," and (2) purport "to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts."
The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by a Detroit resident, Kevin Lindke, against James Freed, the city manager of Port Huron, Michigan. Freed blocked Lindke from commenting on his Facebook page after Lindke made a series of comments on Freed's posts, criticizing the city's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Freed's account was originally started as a personal one in 2008, and while he largely posted about public topics over the years, after his appointment to the government in 2014, Freed described himself on the page as "Daddy to Lucy, Husband to Jessie and City Manager, Chief Administrative Officer for the citizens of Port Huron, MI."
In the ruling, SCOTUS weighed the fact that Freed had his official title on the page and that he regularly interacted with constituents in posts, against his own First Amendment rights to speak about his duties at work as a private citizen.
"The question is difficult, especially in a case involving a state or local official who routinely interacts with the public," the ruling reads. "Such officials may look like they are always on the clock, making it tempting to characterize every encounter as part of the job. But the state-action doctrine avoids such broad-brush assumptions—for good reason."
Barrett continued for the court, writing that Lindke "cannot hang his hat on Freed's status as a state employee."
"The distinction between private conduct and state action turns on substance, not labels: Private parties can act with the authority of the State, and state officials have private lives and their own constitutional rights," she continued. "Categorizing conduct, therefore, can require a close look."
The issue of allowing public officials to block users on social media has been heard by the court before, when in 2017, Trump was challenged by the Knight Foundation over his choice to block critics on Twitter. After Trump left office in 2021, SCOTUS dismissed the case as moot and ordered the lower court to vacate the ruling.
Friday's ruling revisited the question, establishing a framework on these issues that some legal scholars worry could be impractical or offer sweeping protections to politicians if they simply label their accounts as personal, even if they continue acting in an official capacity on social media.
Dhillon Law Group partner Gary Lawkowski told The Verge that "the biggest impact of this opinion may not be the formal test set forth in its holding—rather, its language buried in the opinion that effectively creates a safe harbor for public officials who place disclaimers on their social media accounts, providing an easy way for public officials to stay on the 'personal' side of the law going forward."