Plain-English summary
Vacates Ninth Circuit ruling on whether officials’ personal social accounts are state action
The Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision that public officials’ personal social media pages were state action for First Amendment claims and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with Lindke v. Freed. The decision does not resolve in general when a public official’s personal account is government action.
Why this matters
The case affects when people can use federal civil-rights law to challenge a public official’s use of social media. The decision narrows (or at least pauses) a path for lawsuits that treat officials’ personal accounts as government-run forums, and it sends questions back to lower courts for further fact-specific analysis.
Who may feel it
- Users blocked by public officials on social media
- Public officials who use social media
- Civil-rights plaintiffs and lawyers
- Social media platforms and moderators
Key questions
- Does a public official’s blocking of a person from a personal social-media account constitute state action under the First Amendment?
- When does an official’s personal account become a government-controlled forum because of how the account is used or presented?