The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the public can sue government officials who block or mute them on social media.
The court released its verdict on Friday and clarified that the lawsuit was justified, depending not only on who was the blocker but whether they did it using an official account.
The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the public can sue government officials who block or mute them on social media.
The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the public can sue government officials who block or mute them on social media.
The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the public can sue government officials who block or mute them on social media.
Justice Amy Coney Barett wrote that social media accounts also serve as official communication channels when the user “possesses the actual authority to speak on the state’s behalf” and “purports to exercise that authority.”
The ruling then meant that it is applicable even when the official uses his personal social media account, as long as this account was previously used to post and disseminate official information.
The justices are responding to two cases filed in Michigan and California, where public officials blocked their constituents on Facebook for criticizing them.
In California, Poway Unified School District Board of Trustees members Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and TJ Zane blocked parents Christoper and Kimberly Garnier on their Facebook page and Twitter account.
Meanwhile, Port Huron City, Michigan, city manager James Freed blocked his constituents on Facebook after they criticized the municipality’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Supreme Court sent back both cases to lower courts to have the new ruling applied.
Justice Barrett wrote that according to the so-called state action doctrine, the test for “actual authority” must be “rooted in written law or longstanding custom to speak for the state.”
“Sometimes, however, the line between private conduct and state action is difficult to draw,” Barrett argued, including when social media use is in question.
The judge also noted that the distinction will depend on “substance, not labels.”
Additionally, Justice Barrett said that private individuals can act with government authority and that government officials have private, personal lives and constitutional rights.
“That authority must extend to speech of the sort that caused the deprivation of the alleged rights. If the plaintiff cannot make this threshold showing of authority, he cannot establish state action.”
“For social media activity to constitute state action, an official must not only have state authority—he must also purport to use it,” Barrett continued.
“State officials have a choice about the capacity in which they choose to speak.”
The Supreme Court has now provided 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.
