The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether people can sue public officials who block them on social media, a legal question left unresolved in a previous case involving former President Donald Trump’s Twitter account. The court will examine two separate cases involving much-lower-profile figures, including two members of the Poway Unified School District Board of Trustees in southern California and the city manager of Port Huron, Michigan. The ruling will have broad implications in guiding how lower courts handle such cases.
The cases involve parents of children enrolled in the Poway Unified School District who sent comments and replies to two school board members’ Facebook and Twitter posts. Michaelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane, both board members, blocked the parents after receiving critical messages from them. In response, the parents filed suit in federal court for violation of their First Amendment rights.
In addition to this case, another lawsuit concerning James Freed—the city manager of Port Huron—blocking a constituent who posted critical comments about his response to the COVID-19 pandemic is being considered by the Supreme Court.
Previously dismissed as moot was former President Trump's move to block Twitter users criticizing him and his policies—a similar issue that now resurfaces with these new lawsuits.
While hearing each case separately, they present near-identical issues: Should courts weigh factors like an account's purpose or appearance when deciding if blocking users violates their First Amendment rights? Furthermore, do government officials act "under color of state law" when operating social media pages as a public forum?
California Federal Judge Thomas J. Whelan wrote in 2019 that it is reasonable to infer that Christopher and Kimberly Garnier's (the suing couple) comments did not disrupt original posts made by Poway Unified School District Board Trustees O'Connor-Ratcliff and Zane; last year July saw agreement from the 9th U.N. Circuit Court of Appeals.
This Supreme Court decision will set a precedent for future cases involving public officials blocking constituents on social media, determining whether First Amendment protections apply and clarifying the role of government officials in such contexts.