Social media has changed how we communicate with our elected officials, and the US Supreme Court has officially weighed in on what that means for your First Amendment rights. In March 2024, the Court issued a unanimous decision in a case called Lindke v. Freed. This is a case that every public official and every citizen should know about.
The Case in Plain English
James Freed was the city manager of Port Huron, Michigan. He maintained an active Facebook page where he posted a mix of personal content, such as family photos, home improvement projects, and Bible verses, alongside information directly related to his job, including the city’s response to COVID-19.
A resident named Kevin Lindke began commenting on Freed’s posts, criticizing the city’s pandemic response. Freed initially deleted Lindke’s comments and eventually blocked him from the page entirely. Lindke sued, arguing that his First Amendment rights had been violated.
The case wound through the courts before landing at the Supreme Court, where Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the unanimous opinion.
What the Court Decided
The Court held that a public official who prevents someone from commenting on their social media page engages in what is called “state action”. Public officials can potentially violate the First Amendment if two conditions are both true: (1) the official possessed actual authority to speak on the government’s behalf on a particular matter, and (2) the official purported to exercise that authority in the relevant posts.
In simpler terms, if you’re an elected or appointed official and you use your social media account to conduct or communicate about official business, you may not be able to simply delete critical comments or block constituents who disagree with you. The platform doesn’t matter. The account name doesn’t matter. What matters is how you’re using it.
The “It’s My Personal Page” Defense Has Limits
Many public officials assume that because they personally set up and manage a social media account, it’s purely private. The Supreme Court said it’s not that simple.
The Court was clear that an official’s status as a government employee alone is not the determining factor. The distinction between private conduct and state action relies on substance, not labels.
The Court explained that a social media account may be personal in some respects and official in others, sometimes post by post. An official who describes themselves on their profile using their title, links to government websites, shares meeting reminders, solicits public feedback on policy questions, or posts official announcements is blurring that line in ways that matter legally.
A post that expressly invokes state authority to make an announcement not available elsewhere is considered official. A post that merely repeats or shares information already available elsewhere is more likely personal.
Why School Board Members Should Pay Close Attention
The companion case decided alongside Lindke, known as O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, involved elected school board members.
In that case, two members of a California school district’s Board of Trustees (equivalent to a School Board) had created public Facebook and Twitter accounts to promote their election campaigns. After they were elected, they continued using those accounts to post content related to school board business, including student and faculty achievements, reminders about board meetings, and matters of public safety at schools. When parents who were critical of the board were blocked, they sued.
Concurrent with the Lindke opinion, The Supreme Court vacated a Ninth Circuit decision that determined the Trustees were involved in state action and sent the case back to the lower courts to be re-evaluated under the new Lindke standard. In other words, the Ninth Circuit determined that the Trustees could not block constituents but used different reasoning than that established in Lindke. The Court sent it back to the Ninth Circuit to re-evaluate using the Lindke standard.
The message to school board members is direct. If you use a social media account to communicate about board business, post about meetings, share school news, or invite community engagement on district matters, that account may not be as “personal” as you think, at least not for the posts where you’re functioning as a board member.
What This Means for Citizens
If you’ve been blocked from a public official’s social media account or had your comments deleted and that official regularly uses the account to discuss their official role, you may have more recourse than you realize. Citizens who are blocked from a government official’s social media page can lose meaningful access to public information and lose the ability to exercise their right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The Supreme Court recognized this. Citizens should, too.
You don’t have to accept being silenced. The law is on your side and the highest court in the land has said so, unanimously.
A Practical Note for Officials
If you are a public official and you want to maintain a purely personal social media presence, the Court’s ruling suggests a clear path: keep it genuinely personal. Don’t list your title prominently. Don’t post official announcements. Don’t solicit public feedback on policy. Don’t link to government resources. And above all, understand that because Facebook’s blocking tool operates on a page-wide basis, blocking someone to stop them from commenting on personal posts may also block them from commenting on official ones and that’s where the constitutional problem arises.
The bottom line is this: the internet didn’t change the First Amendment. It just created new places where it applies.
Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (2024), was decided March 15, 2024. The opinion was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett for a unanimous Court.