An elected official in Missouri violated the constitutional rights of a political activist when he blocked her on Twitter, now known as X, a federal court ruled on Jan. 29.
Then-St. Louis Board of Aldermen President Lewis Reed, a Democrat, in 2019 blocked activist Sarah Felts just hours after she made a post calling on him to explain the decision to close a prison.
Mr. Reed, who is now in jail, said in a deposition that he blocked multiple users because they were “talking bad” about him. He also said he blocked Ms. Felts because he thought she was threatening him with her use of the word “aldergeddon,” even though that term was used widely by local journalists and others.
A U.S. district court judge ruled in favor of Ms. Felts in 2022, prompting an appeal. In the new decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the ruling.
“Reed’s decision to block Felts was a deliberate choice of a guiding principle and procedure to silence online critics,” U.S. Circuit Judge Duane Benton said in the 9-page decision.
“Reed made a deliberate choice to block Felts among various alternatives—ignoring the tweet, muting her account, replying from the account, replying from a pseudonymous ‘burner’ account, or replying from a personal account not administered under color of law as an official governmental account,” Judge Benton added.
An appointee of President George W. Bush, the judge was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges James Loken, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, and Roger Wollman, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan.
St. Louis Board of Aldermen President Megan Green, another Democrat, who lodged the appeal, is not planning to appeal, her office told The Epoch Times via email.
Attorneys for Ms. Felts did not return a query.
Official Account
While not all social media accounts of elected officials are official accounts, the one that blocked Ms. Felts was, U.S. District Judge John Ross, appointed by President Barack Obama, ruled in 2022.That determination was reached after a review of the Twitter account showed it described Mr. Reed as “president of the Board of Aldermen,” and a review of court documents showed Mr. Reed had the account embedded in the official webpage of the office of the president of the Board of Aldermen, which is part of the official city website.
“Based on the record before it and applicable law, the court concludes that Reed administered the account under color of state law as an official governmental account,” Judge Ross said.
Mr. Reed claimed that he was threatened, and threats are not protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
But “the record does not suggest that Plaintiff’s speech falls within this unprotected category,” the judge said. “The #aldergeddon reference in plaintiff’s tweet was a hashtag used by journalists and elected officials to tag content related to the Board of Aldermen. It does not connote a violent intent and in no way formed a basis for Reed to block plaintiff from the account.”
The city appealed, arguing that Mr. Reed was not “a final decisionmaker” and therefore his decision to block Ms. Felts was not a city policy.
More on New Ruling
In the unanimous ruling this week, Judge Benton said the city was mistaken.The panel examined court documents and state and local law, finding that Mr. Reed held “a distinct office with unique powers” that included final authority on communications from his office. He was also, according to a joint stipulation, “free to ignore the city of St. Louis’ social media policies issued by the director of personnel.”
“When Reed blocked Felts on Twitter, he executed a final municipal policy in his area of the city’s business, the office of the president of the Board of Aldermen,” Judge Benton said.
Because of the city charter, the board’s president lacks oversight, so “Reed’s choice to block Felts on a government account was unilateral, unreviewable, and not subject to other policies,” the judge added later. “He created municipal policy in his area of the city’s business. Because of the unique power of the President of the Board of Aldermen, Reed exercised final policymaking authority when he blocked Felts.”
That makes the city liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that protects civil rights, according to the ruling.
The appeals court upheld the lower court ruling, which ordered the city not to block users on government accounts. The judge also awarded Ms. Felts $1 in damages, $131,193 in attorneys fees, and $3,215 in costs.
