During Donald Trump’s presidency, a First Amendment lawsuit was triggered when he banned critics from his Twitter account. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled in 2019 that he could not selectively exclude those with differing views once the President had chosen a platform and opened up its interactive space to millions of users. Although the case became moot after Trump left office, similar issues have arisen across the country as public officials, regardless of party affiliation, often seek to silence critics rather than ignore them.
In two unanimous decisions released on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that blocking critics on social media can violate the First Amendment. Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated in Lindke v. Freed that when a government official posts about work-related topics on social media, it is considered official speech only if the official had actual authority to speak for the State.
The case in question involves James Freed, the City Manager of Port Huron, Michigan, who used his Facebook page to share personal and job-related information. When a resident criticized Freed’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic response, Freed deleted the comments and eventually blocked the resident. The resident sued Freed, alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights.
The lawsuit hinges on whether Freed was acting in his public capacity when he blocked the resident. A federal judge initially rejected the claim, noting that Freed’s social media posts were mainly personal and did not involve official government business. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld this decision but did not adequately consider the nuances surrounding public officials’ use of social media.
In a separate case involving California school board members, the Supreme Court also sent the case back to the lower courts for reconsideration. The Court emphasized the need for a clear standard in determining when blocking individuals on social media constitutes state action.