After hearing appeals of two conflicting rulings — one filed against school board members in Southern California and another filed against the city manager of Port Huron, Mich. — the justices provided no definitive resolution to the disputes and instead sent both cases back to lower courts to apply the new legal test, our colleagues Ella Lee, Zach Schonfeld and Rebecca Beitsch reported.
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court said state officials cannot block constituents on their personal pages when they have “actual authority to speak on behalf of the State on a particular matter” and “purported to exercise that authority in the relevant posts.”
“For social-media activity to constitute state action, an official must not only have state authority—he must also purport to use it,” Barrett wrote.
The case marked the latest battle over public officials’ social media presence when they mesh their official and personal roles.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard the Michigan case, sided with the city manager, James Freed, who deleted comments on his Facebook page left by a resident and blocked several of the resident’s profiles. The resident, Kevin Lindke, had criticized Freed over his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, court filings indicate.
“Importantly, Lindke must show more than that Freed had some authority to communicate with residents on behalf of Port Huron. The alleged censorship must be connected to speech on a matter within Freed’s bailiwick,” Barrett wrote.
The justices seemed inclined to side with the city manager during oral arguments in October 2023. Several justices raised concerns that an overly broad rule could chill the speech of elected officials, who are effectively always on the clock.
Their decision does not carve out a definitive win for either side, though it provides Lindke another chance at getting the city manager’s actions deemed unconstitutional. After handing down its new test in the Michigan case, the justices similarly sent the California case back to a lower court.
Read more in a full report at TheHill.com.
