Facts
- James R. Freed served as City Manager of Port Huron, Michigan.
- Freed created a personal Facebook profile before taking office and later converted it to a public-facing page that allowed public comments.
- After becoming city manager, Freed updated the page to reference his official role and posted a mix of personal content and job-related information, including posts inviting community feedback.
- During the COVID-19 pandemic, Freed posted pandemic-related content; Kevin Lindke, a city resident, posted critical comments on some of Freed’s posts.
- Freed deleted some of Lindke’s comments and ultimately blocked Lindke from commenting on the page.
- Lindke sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Freed violated the First Amendment by excluding him from a public forum while acting under color of state law.
Issues
- When does a public official act “under color of” state law for § 1983 purposes when posting on, deleting comments from, or blocking users on a personal or mixed-use social-media account?
- What showing is required to attribute the official’s social-media speech and moderation decisions to the government rather than to the official as a private citizen?
Decision
- The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded.
- The Court held that a public official’s social-media activity is state action only if the official (1) had actual authority to speak on the government’s behalf on the relevant matter and (2) purported to exercise that authority in the challenged speech or moderation decision.
- The Court required a post-by-post (and action-by-action) application of this test for mixed-use accounts and concluded further proceedings were necessary because the record was insufficiently developed under the correct standard.
Legal Principles
-
§ 1983 liability requires state action; conduct is attributable to the State only when the State can fairly be held responsible for it.
-
Social-media speech by a government official is state action only when:
- the official possessed actual authority (express or implied under law, duties, or responsibilities) to speak for the government on the subject; and
- the official purported to act in that authoritative capacity in the specific post or moderation act at issue.
-
An official’s discussion of public matters, even while identifying as an officeholder or using a mixed-use account, is not automatically state action.
-
Mixed-use accounts cannot be categorized wholesale as “official” or “private”; courts must evaluate the content, context, and function of each challenged post and each related moderation decision.
Conclusion
The Court required courts to treat social-media state-action disputes as a targeted inquiry into authority and its asserted use, holding that moderation decisions on a public official’s mixed-use account implicate the First Amendment under § 1983 only when the official both had authority to speak for the government and purported to use that authority in the specific challenged conduct.