O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 24 Apr 2023

Whether a public official engages in state action subject to the First Amendment by blocking an individual from the official's personal social-media account, when the official uses the account to feature their job and communicate about job-related matters with the public, but does not do so pursuant to any governmental authority or duty.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case involves a dispute over whether public officials can block individuals from their social media accounts without violating the First Amendment. O'Connor-Ratcliff and Garnier, two school board members in California, blocked certain constituents from commenting on their Facebook pages after they posted critical comments. The plaintiffs argued that these actions violated their free speech rights under the First Amendment because the officials used these platforms to communicate with the public about official business. The Supreme Court ruled that when public officials use social media for official purposes, those accounts are considered government-controlled spaces where blocking users based on viewpoint is unconstitutional. This decision underscores how digital communication by elected representatives must adhere to constitutional protections of free expression.