U.S. Supreme Court sets test in case of Michigan official deleting Facebook comments
WASHINGTON — In a Michigan case, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Friday that a public official who blocked comments on his social media page violates free speech rights only if they had “actual authority” to speak on behalf of the government and intended to act in that capacity when “speaking” on social media.
The case examined whether Port Huron City Manager James Freed violated the First Amendment of a local resident, Kevin Lindke, when Freed deleted Lindke’s Facebook comments and eventually blocked Lindke from his personal Facebook page.
The question before the high court was what kind of factors courts should consider to determine whether a government official was acting as a government official “under the color of” law or in their personal capacity when posting on social media.
The district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit both ruled in favor of Freed, but the Supreme Court on Friday threw out that decision and sent the case back down for further proceedings consistent with the justices’ ruling.
The high court’s decision sends the case back to the appellate court to decide whether Freed met the Supreme Court’s new guideline established in the ruling.
“We are extremely confident we will prevail there once more,” Freed said Friday in a statement.
In writing for the high court, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett said the “ambiguity” surrounding Freed’s Facebook page requires a “fact-specific undertaking” by the lower courts to determine which posts’ content and function are the most important considerations in the analysis.
She noted that, had Freed’s account had carried a label — for example: “this is the personal page of James R. Freed” — “he would be entitled to a heavy presumption that all of his posts were personal.” But Freed’s page was neither labeled “personal” nor “official.”
“A post that expressly invokes state authority to make an announcement not available elsewhere is official, while a post that merely repeats or shares otherwise available information is more likely personal,” Barrett wrote.
“Lest any official lose the right to speak about public affairs in his personal capacity, the plaintiff must show that the official purports to exercise state authority in specific posts.”
Barrett also added that the “nature” of the social media tool or technology matters to the legal analysis.
She noted that, for example, because Facebook’s blocking tool applies to his entire page, a court would have to consider whether Freed had engaged in state action with respect to any of Freed’s posts on which Lindke wanted to comment.