Lindke v. Freed

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 24 Apr 2023

Courts have increasingly been called upon to determine whether a public official who selectively blocks access to his or her social media account has engaged in state action subject to constitutional scrutiny. To answer that question, most circuits consider a broad range of factors, including the account's appearance and purpose. But in the decision below, the court of appeals rejected the relevance of any consideration other than whether the official was performing a "duty of his office" or invoking the "authority of his office." App. 5a. The question presented is: Whether a public official's social media activity can constitute state action only if the official used the account to perform a governmental duty or under the authority of his or her office.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case involves a dispute over whether a public official's social media account can be considered a public forum subject to First Amendment scrutiny. The petitioner, Lindke, argued that Freed, the respondent and city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, violated his free speech rights by blocking him on Facebook after he posted critical comments about local government policies. The central issue was whether Freed’s Facebook page constituted an official governmental communication channel or if it was maintained in a personal capacity. The Supreme Court ruled that because Freed used the account primarily for private purposes and not as an extension of his official duties or under any directive from the municipality, it did not qualify as state action subject to First Amendment constraints.