Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
Update:
- The U.S. Supreme Court created a two-part test to determine whether a public official’s social media posts are protected under the First Amendment and whether they can block an individual.
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the unanimous opinion, instructing courts to establish whether an individual has authority to speak on behalf of the state and expresses that authority in the post.
- Additionally, the speech is only public if it’s used in the “furtherance of his official responsibilities,” Barrett writes.
- The court did not rule in the two cases — O’Connor-Ratcliff, et al. v. Garnier, et al. and Lindke v. Freed — instead sending them back to the lower courts.
Supreme Court Facebook block appeal overview:
- Who: The Supreme Court has agreed to review a pair of cases that were previously — and independently — heard in the 9th Circuit and 6th Circuit.
- Why: The cases revolve around whether public officials should be allowed to block individuals from accessing and commenting on their Facebook pages.
- Where: The cases are before the Supreme Court of the United States.
(May 8, 2023)
The Supreme Court has agreed to take on two cases under appeal in the 9th and 6th circuits that concern whether public officials should be allowed to block individuals from accessing their Facebook pages.
In both cases, the appellants are asking the Supreme Court to determine whether public officials blocking individuals from commenting on their social media pages constitutes as a state action that would violate the First Amendment, Law360 reports.
The high court has reportedly granted a certiorari petition filed by two members of the Poway Unified School District Board of Trustees asking for a review of a 9th Circuit decision that they violated the First Amendment by blocking two constituents from commenting on their social media pages.
The 9th Circuit, in ruling against the board of trustees members, determined their social media pages constituted as public forums, and thus blocking a pair of parents from commenting violated the law, Law360 reports.
Michigan resident disagrees with allowing official to block comments on personal Facebook
The Supreme Court has also reportedly agreed to review an appeal from a Port Huron, Michigan, resident arguing the 6th Circuit wrongly ruled city official James Freed was allowed to block them from commenting on his personal Facebook page.
The Michigan resident is reportedly arguing Freed violated the resident’s constitutional rights by preventing them from commenting on his personal page on the social networking site, Law360 reports.
In another news involving social media, Utah earlier this month became the first state in the U.S. to pass laws that will limit access to social media platforms for individuals under the age of 18.
Do you believe public officials should be able to prevent individuals from accessing their Facebook pages? Let us know in the comments.
The plaintiffs are collectively represented by Cory J. Briggs of Briggs Law Corp. and Victoria R. Ferres of Fletcher Fealko Shoudy & Francis PC.
The Facebook block lawsuits are O’Connor-Ratcliff, et al. v. Garnier, et al., Case No. 22-324, and Lindke v. Freed, Case No. 22-611, before the Supreme Court of the United States.
Don’t Miss Out!
Check out our list of Class Action Lawsuits and Class Action Settlements you may qualify to join!
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
11 thoughts onSupreme Court rules public officials can block people on social media
To Block a person who post their opinion about a Public official is an infringement of their Freedom of Speech (A GOD given Birthright that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON). Americans have Freedom of Speech. If you don’t like being scrutinized then don’t run for Public office, as All Politicians Work for We The People, and we have a right to pass judgment on you, when you represent us. If you can’t take the heat get OUT of the Kitchen….
Yes i have been hack so many time it dont make since and i kelp trying to contact them and never got a reply so please add me
Please add me to clim. I have been hacked so many times and was ousted a couple for my views.
I have been blocked many times and I didn’t say anything out of character. I have seen worse comments than mine especially
Political party.
I have been in Facebook jail before. It is just crazy because my comments were not hurting anyone. Add me please.
Add me please.
Add me please
Add me please
I filed claim on this blocking bs by facehooker and have heard nothing! I been on site since its birth and from approx 2018 to current date I cannot count times I’ve been banned for posting or commenting for several months at a time or have had wjat I deemed important content removed. These sobs will never be brought to justice or us victims get just reward! As for the youth mental health and Facebook settlement. I’m not a youth but suffer and found disabled for severe bi polar and manic depression back 2014 and Facebook actions affected me greatly because ot was my source as an outlet for what I was going through. I don’t understand why that lawsuit only for young when they are ignoring older adults with well diagnosed severe mental health issues and they constantly took away our outlet of communicating with others which helped us amd left is to be silenced and worsened our already fragile state!!
Please add me as they keep blocking me saying my post goes against community guidelines! I’m always in Facebook jail.
Please add me. My original Facebook page has been blocked for over 6 months now and I don’t know why.