Anne Hemenway—Senior Attorney
On March 15, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided a pair of cases from Michigan and California on the issue of whether a public official violates the First Amendment by blocking individuals from the public official's personal social media page. In the Michigan case, Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187, 144 S. Ct. 756, 218 L. Ed. 2d 121 (2024), Kevin Lindke, a private citizen argued that James R. Freed, the unelected city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, violated his free speech rights when the unelected official blocked the complaining citizen from his personal Facebook page. In the California case, O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, 601 U.S. 205, 144 S. Ct. 717, 218 L. Ed. 2d 138 (2024), two elected school board members blocked from their social media pages the parents who criticized the board of trustees. In both cases, the blocked citizens were outraged that they were barred from the private internet sites.
Speaking for a unanimous Court in the Michigan case, Justice Barrett did not decide whether the unelected city manager had a right to ban the complaining citizen from his Facebook page, but instead issued a set of guidelines for the lower courts to use when deciding similar cases. These guidelines include determining whether the post in question on the social media page of the public official "expressly invokes state authority to make an announcement not available elsewhere." If so, Justice Barrett held that such a post is "official" and the public is entitled to make comments in response. On the other hand, "a post that merely repeats or shares otherwise available information is more likely personal." In such cases, the owner of the social media page may block any critical or unwelcome comments. Justice Barrett also opined that if a public official places a disclaimer on the social media post that clarifies that the views expressed are the official's personal views, the lower courts should take that into serious consideration when deciding whether the page is public or private.
In sum, the Supreme Court opined that public officials should maintain two accounts and keep private matters private and official matters official. Justice Barrett did not comment on the fact that when Donald Trump was President he used his personal Twitter account to communicate to the public and repeatedly blocked critics—a practice the federal court of appeals ruled was illegal.
