The Supreme Court Considers Cases on Public Officials’ Social Media Use, Echoing a Previous Case Concerning Donald Trump’s Twitter Account

The U.S. Supreme Court is addressing the legal implications surrounding public officials who prevent detractors from commenting on their social media profiles, a subject initially broached in a lawsuit related to former President Donald Trump.

Arguments are set to be heard this Tuesday in two distinct lawsuits. One involves individuals who were prohibited from commenting on social media profiles managed by members of a school board in Southern California. The other pertains to a city manager in Port Huron, Michigan, northeast of Detroit, who faced a similar situation.

These cases are components of a broader examination during the current court term on how government entities interact with private digital platforms.

In the coming year, the Court will also assess laws enacted by Republican legislatures in Florida and Texas that forbid major social media enterprises from removing posts based on the opinions they convey. These legislative acts have been challenged by tech companies, which argue that such restrictions infringe upon their First Amendment rights. The laws are indicative of a prevailing sentiment among Republicans that social media platforms are biased against conservative viewpoints.

Also under judicial review are objections from the states of Missouri and Louisiana to the Biden administration’s initiatives aimed at mitigating divisive social media content on subjects such as COVID-19 and election integrity. These states contend that such federal actions unconstitutionally compel platforms to target conservative opinions.

The cases to be heard on Tuesday are more neutral in political undertones, although they bear resemblances to a case centered around Trump’s decision to block critical voices from his Twitter account, currently identified as X. That case was eventually set aside by the Court when Trump’s term concluded.

The Twitter handle @realdonaldtrump boasted over 88 million followers. Trump contended that the account was his personal asset, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York determined that he was unable to restrict critics as he utilized the account for pronouncements that were chiefly official.

Rulings from Appeals Courts in San Francisco and Cincinnati have generated divergent opinions concerning when private accounts transition into official ones.

The first of the two cases being considered focuses on Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane, elected members of the Poway Unified School District Board of Trustees in California. The pair employed their individual Facebook and Twitter accounts for public communications. Two parents, Christopher and Kimberly Garnier, who posted dissenting comments on these accounts, were subsequently blocked. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that such action violated the parents’ free speech rights. Zane is no longer a board member.

The second case involves James Freed, appointed as Port Huron’s city manager in 2014. Freed utilized a Facebook page, originally created during his college days, for public communication and personal anecdotes. In 2020, a resident named Kevin Lindke posted multiple comments from three Facebook profiles, including criticisms of the city’s handling of the COVID-19 crisis. Freed blocked all accounts and deleted Lindke’s remarks. Although Lindke filed a lawsuit, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of Freed, noting the multifaceted nature of his Facebook page.

The Biden administration has taken the side of the officials in question, arguing for a distinction between their personal and official lives, especially since the government neither owns nor administers these accounts, according to the Justice Department.

Conversely, the American Civil Liberties Union contends that in both cases, the officials undertook state action by excluding dissenting voices from social media accounts that they promoted as extensions of their public roles.

Decisions in the cases O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, 22-324, and Lindke v. Freed, 22-611, are anticipated by the early summer months.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about U.S. Supreme Court and Social Media

More about U.S. Supreme Court and Social Media

• U.S. Supreme Court Official Website
• First Amendment and Social Media: An Overview
• Overview of O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier Case
• Overview of Lindke v. Freed Case
• American Civil Liberties Union Official Statement on Social Media and Public Officials