The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether Americans can sue government officials who block them on social media, an issue that also arose during former President Donald Trump’s time in office.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the matter, which is likely to be heard in the court’s new term that begins in October, is likely to have an impact on all levels of government as citizens increasingly turn to social media to interact with public officials.
Katie Fallow, an attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which participated in the lawsuit against Trump, told NBC News that government officials are required to accept feedback from the public.
“As many courts have held, it doesn’t matter whether it’s the president or a local city manager, government officials can’t block people from these forums simply because they don’t like what they’re saying,” Fallow reportedly said.
“The Supreme Court should reaffirm that basic First Amendment principle,” she added.
The new decision to hear O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier (court file 22-324), and a related case, Lindke v. Freed (court file 22-611), came April 24. The justices did not explain why they granted the petitions and no justices dissented from the decision to move forward with the cases.
The legal issue before the Supreme Court is whether a public official is engaging in state action subject to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when he blocks an individual from accessing his social media account.
One federal appeals court found in favor of the citizens; another found for the public official.
Petitioners Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane were two elected members of the Poway Unified School District Board of Trustees in California who used their personal Facebook and Twitter accounts to communicate with the public. Respondents Christopher Garnier and Kimberly Garnier, parents of local students, “spammed Petitioners’ posts and tweets with repetitive comments and replies” so the petitioners blocked the respondents from the accounts, according to the petition filed by O’Connor-Ratcliff and Zane.
But the Garniers said they were acting in good faith.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found in favor of the Garniers, holding that elected officials using social media accounts were participating in a public forum.
Respondent James Freed, the city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, used a public Facebook account to communicate with his constituents. Petitioner Kevin Lindke, a resident of Port Huron, criticized the municipality’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic including the perceived hypocrisy of local officials. Freed blocked Lindke and others and removed their comments, according to Lindke’s petition.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled for Freed, finding that he was acting only in a personal capacity and that his activities did not constitute governmental action.
Cory Jay Briggs of Briggs Law Corp., is attorney for the Garniers.
“The Garniers have a very strong case, and we look forwarding to presenting it to the justices,” Briggs told The Epoch Times by email.
The Epoch Times reached out to Hashim Mooppan of Jones Day, who represents O’Connor-Ratcliff and Zane, but had not received a reply as of press time.
Allon Kedem of Arnold and Porter, the attorney for petitioner Kevin Lindke, refused to comment.
The Epoch Times reached out to Victoria Read Ferres of Fletcher, Fealko, Shoudy, and Francis, counsel for Freed, but had not received a reply as of press time.
