Lindke v. Freed

In Lindke v. Freed, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether a public official's social media activity constitutes state action under the First Amendment when the official blocks a member of the public. James Freed, city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, used his Facebook page for both personal and official purposes and blocked resident Kevin Lindke, who criticized the city's COVID-19 policies. The Sixth Circuit ruled the page was personal and not state action. The Supreme Court vacated that ruling, establishing that a public official engages in state action when the official possessed actual authority to speak on behalf of the State on a particular matter and purported to exercise that authority in the relevant posts. The case was remanded for application of this test.

The Supreme Court unanimously vacated the Sixth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case. It held that a public official who blocks someone on social media engages in state action only if the official had actual authority to speak on behalf of the State on a specific matter and purported to exercise that authority in the relevant posts. The lower court must apply this test to determine whether Freed's blocking of Lindke violated the First Amendment.

Whether a public official's decision to block a constituent from a social media page that mixes personal and official content constitutes state action subject to First Amendment constraints.

The decision provides a clear test for when public officials' social media accounts are subject to First Amendment limits, balancing free speech rights with officials' private capacity. It will guide how government officials nationwide manage mixed-use social media accounts and has significant implications for digital engagement between citizens and public officials.