- The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that public officials can be sued for blocking critics on social media.
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett said officials cannot delete comments or block critics if they use personal accounts for public statements.
- Officials must have the authority to speak on behalf of the government and must intend to use it for their post to be considered government in nature for the rules to apply. There is.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Friday that public officials can be sued for blocking critics on social media. The issue first surfaced in the high court in a case involving then-President Donald Trump.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court, said officials who use personal accounts to issue public statements may not have the freedom to delete comments about those statements or block critics altogether. He said he could not.
Meanwhile, “state employees have private lives and unique constitutional rights,” Barrett wrote.
50 Democrats and 15 Republicans vote “no” on bill aimed at blocking TikTok
The court ruled in two cases involving lawsuits brought by people who were blocked after leaving critical comments on the social media accounts of a Southern California school board member and a city administrator in Port Huron, Michigan, northeast of Detroit. . These lawsuits are similar to those involving Trump and his decision to block critics from his personal account on Twitter, now known as X. After Trump left office in January 2021, the justices dismissed the case.
The Supreme Court will convene in Washington on March 7, 2024. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Friday that public officials can be sued for blocking critics on social media. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
These cases have forced courts to grapple with the competing free speech rights of public officials and their constituents in a rapidly evolving virtual world. These are among five social media cases on the court docket this session.
Appellate courts in San Francisco and Cincinnati have reached conflicting decisions about when personal accounts become official, and the high court has adopted neither ruling and is filing a lawsuit to apply the standards the justices laid out Friday. was remanded to the Court of Appeals.
“When government officials post on social media about work-related topics, it can be difficult to tell whether the speech is official or private,” Barrett said.
Supreme Court unanimously rules for Trump in Colorado voting disqualification case
Officials must have the authority to speak on behalf of the government, Barrett wrote, and he intends to use that to ensure that his post is considered government in nature. In such cases, she wrote, if you don’t tolerate criticism, you risk being sued.
In one case, James Freed, who was appointed Port Huron City Administrator in 2014, used his first Facebook page, which he created as a student, to communicate with the public and share details of his daily life. did.
In 2020, resident Kevin Lindke used the page to make several comments across three Facebook profiles, including criticism of the city’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Fried blocked all three accounts and deleted Lindke’s comments. Lindke sued, but the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Fried, referring to Lindke’s role as a “father, husband and city administrator” on his Facebook page. he pointed out.
Another case involved two elected members of the Poway Unified School District Board of Trustees, California’s school board. Members Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliffe and TJ Zane used their personal Facebook and Twitter accounts to communicate with the public. Two parents, Christopher Garnier and Kimberly Garnier, were blocked after leaving critical comments and replies to posts on the board member’s account. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the board members violated parents’ free speech rights by doing so. Zane no longer serves on the school board.
Legal experts rally behind Supreme Court ruling to keep President Trump on the ballot: ‘Stern warning’ to ‘radicals’
The court’s other social media cases have a more partisan tone. The justices are evaluating laws passed by Republicans in Florida and Texas that prohibit large social media companies from removing posts based on opinions expressed. Tech companies argued that the law violated their First Amendment rights. The law reflects a view within the Republican Party that platforms unfairly censor conservative viewpoints.
Next week, the court will hear challenges from Missouri and Louisiana to the Biden administration’s efforts to combat controversial social media posts on topics including the coronavirus and election security. States argue that Democratic administrations are unconstitutionally forcing their platforms to suppress conservative positions.
The cases decided Friday are O’Connor-Ratcliffe v. Garnier, 22-324, and Lindke v. Freed, 22-611.
