O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier

Michelle O'Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane, members of the Poway Unified School District Board of Education, used their personal Facebook and Twitter accounts to post about district business. Christopher and Kimberly Garnier, parents and frequent critics, were blocked from those accounts after posting repetitive negative comments. The Garniers sued, claiming the blocking constituted viewpoint discrimination in a public forum under the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the officials' social media activity was state action because their accounts were inextricably linked to their official roles. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded, holding that the Ninth Circuit did not apply the proper state-action test announced in the companion case Lindke v. Freed.

The Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the standard set forth in Lindke v. Freed.

Whether public officials who block constituents from personal social media accounts used for official business engage in state action subject to First Amendment scrutiny, and what test distinguishes personal from official online conduct.

The ruling clarifies when public officials' social media activity is subject to constitutional constraints, providing guidance for officials nationwide on managing online engagement while protecting constituents' free speech rights.