Lindke v. Freed
| Lindke v. Freed | |
|---|---|
| Argued October 31, 2023 Decided March 15, 2024 | |
| Full case name | Kevin Lindke v. James R. Freed |
| Docket no. | 22-661 |
| Citations | 601 U.S. 187 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Decision | Opinion |
| Holding | |
| A public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official's social-media page engages in state action under §1983 only if the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State's behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Barrett, joined by unanimous |
| O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier | |
|---|---|
| Argued November 1, 2023 Decided March 15, 2024 | |
| Full case name | Michelle O'Connor-Ratcliff, et al. v. Christopher Garnier, et ux. |
| Docket no. | 22-324 |
| Citations | 601 U.S. 205 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Decision | Opinion |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Garnier v. O'Connor-Ratcliff, 513 F. Supp. 3d 1229 (S.D. Cal. 2021); Garnier v. O'Connor-Ratcliff, Zane, 41 F.4th 1158 (9th Cir. 2022) |
| Holding | |
| The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Lindke v. Freed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Per curiam | |
Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (2024), and O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, 601 U.S. 205 (2024), were a pair of United States Supreme Court cases regarding the First Amendment. Both cases were filed by individuals who were blocked from a public official's personal social media account where the official sometimes spoke about official government business. The blocked individuals asserted that their blocks constituted state action subject to the First Amendment and civil rights litigation. In a unanimous decision in Lindke, the court held that speech made by a public official on a private social media account is not government speech – such that the official could not block users or delete comments related to that speech – unless the official had authority to speak on the government's behalf and purported to do so in the posts at issue. In a per curiam opinion, the court remanded O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier back to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of the decision in Lindke.