WASHINGTON — On Halloween, the Supreme Court will hear a pair of cases centered on public officials’ use of social media. The key question in both Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier is whether officials can block constituents from their private accounts. 

What You Need To Know

  • Supreme Court to hear arguments in two linked cases about public officials block critics from following their accounts

  • The cases are similar to one brought against then-president Donald Trump which ended up being dismissed when he left office 

  • The current problem stems from officials using non-government run accounts for what’s arguably government work 

  • The Court’s eventual ruling could have wide-ranging effects

David Cole, a professor at Georgetown Law School and legal director for the ACLU, explains the current problem stems from officials using non-government run accounts for what’s arguably government work. He posits the example of a president creating a private website but announcing government programs on it. 

“Is he acting as a state actor, which would mean that the Constitution applies? And he might, he might violate someone’s rights if he blocks them from access to his site? Or is that simply private conduct to which the Constitution does not apply?” asks Cole. 

The Knight Institute sued then-president Donald Trump in 2017 for blocking individuals on X, previously called Twitter. The case was making its way through the courts, but he left office before the Supreme Court could take it up. 

Both Lindke v Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff involve much lower-level officials: a city manager from Michigan and school board members from California, respectively. The defendants are accused of violating critics’ first amendment rights by blocking them. But Cole says the same standards apply: “Are they public officials bound by the Constitution?” Alternatively: “Are they private officials who have no obligations under the Constitution?”

The Court’s eventual ruling could have wide-ranging effects.

“We use social media to communicate with people, to mobilize, or organize, to raise money, to talk with people, to solicit opinions. It’s a public forum, really,” Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Florida said.

He acknowledges private accounts can be a gray area, but opposes officials blocking anyone on their public account.

“There should be a place on social media where your constituents and anyone can say whatever the hell they want to you and you don’t have the ability to block or censor at all. I think that’s important,” said Maxwell.