Lindke v. Freed

Last updated

Lindke v. Freed
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued October 31, 2023
Decided March 15, 2024
Full case nameKevin Lindke v. James R. Freed
Docket no. 22-661
Argument Oral argument
Holding
A public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official's social-media page engages in state action under §1983 only if the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State's behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinion
MajorityBarrett, joined by unanimous
O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued November 1, 2023
Decided March 15, 2024
Full case nameMichelle O'Connor-Ratcliff, et al. v. Christopher Garnier, et ux.
Docket no. 22-324
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorGarnier v. O'Connor-Ratcliff, 513 F. Supp. 3d 1229 (S.D. Cal. 2021); Garnier v. O'Connor-Ratcliff, Zane, 41 F.4th 1158 (9th Cir. 2022)
Holding
The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Lindke v. Freed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinion
Per curiam

Lindke v. Freed and O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier were United States Supreme Court cases regarding the First Amendment. Both cases were filed by individuals who were blocked from a public official's personal social media account where the official sometimes spoke about official government business. The blocked individuals asserted that their blocks constituted state action subject to the First Amendment and civil rights litigation. [1] In a unanimous decision in Lindke, the court held that speech made by a public official on a private social media account is not government speech – such that the official could not block users or delete comments related to that speech – unless the official had authority to speak on the government's behalf and purported to do so in the posts at issue. [2] In a per curiam opinion, the court remanded O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier back to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of the decision in Lindke.

Contents

Background

In 2014, petitioners Michell O'Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane successfully ran for election to the Board of Trustees of the Poway Unified School District (PUSD), located in Poway, California. In addition to personal accounts, petitioners also created public accounts on Facebook and Twitter to promote their campaigns. After they were elected, petitioners continued to use these accounts to post content related to PUSD business and activities of the Board. This included information about achievements of students and faculty, reminders about Board meetings, and matters of public safety and security at PUSD. [3]

Respondents Christopher and Kimberly Garnier are parents with children attending PUSD schools. For years, the Garniers had been active members of the PUSD community and had often been critical of the Board. They voiced their concerns at public meetings of the Board of Trustees, in emails, and in person at meetings with individual trustees. As they became unsatisfied with the results of these communications, the Garniers began – in 2015 – to comment on Trustees' social media posts. Respondents' comments never included profanity or threatening language, and were nearly always related to PUSD matters. However, the length and repetitive nature of the comments became frustrating to O'Connor-Ratcliff and Zane. For example, Christopher Garnier had once left near-identical comments on 42 separate posts on O'Connor-Ratcliff's Facebook page. He had also left 226 identical replies over the span of 10 minutes to each tweet O'Connor-Ratcliff had ever posted on her public Twitter account.

At first, petitioners began to hide or delete individual comments from their Facebook pages. As this grew onerous, O'Connor-Ratcliff and Zane blocked the Garniers from their social media accounts. Sometime after, petitioners also implemented "word filers" on their Facebook accounts, effectively precluding members of the public from leaving verbal reactions, but not from liking the post or otherwise reacting in a nonverbal way. Since they were blocked, the Garniers were unable to interact with the posts in nonverbal ways.

After they were blocked, the Garniers sued under 42 U.S.C.   § 1983 seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging a violation of the First Amendment. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California ruled in favor of the Garniers, granting declaratory and injunctive relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Supreme Court

A previous case, Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump , related to Donald Trump's use of his personal Twitter account to block users while he served as president, had been decided by the Second Circuit in that Trump's account was considered a public forum and could not block users. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court at the end of 2020, but with Trump leaving office in January 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the case was rendered moot. [4]

O'Connor-Ratcliff and Zane petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their case on October 4, 2022. On April 24, 2023, the Court granted certiorari.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sandra Day O'Connor</span> American lawyer, politician and judge (1930–2023)

Sandra Day O'Connor was an American attorney, politician, and jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1981 to 2006. O'Connor was the first woman to serve as a U.S. Supreme Court justice. A moderate conservative, O'Connor was known for her precisely researched opinions. Nominated by President Ronald Reagan, she was considered a swing vote for the Rehnquist Court and the first four months of the Roberts Court. Before O'Connor's tenure on the Court, she was an Arizona state judge and earlier an elected legislator in Arizona, serving as the first female majority leader of a state senate as the Republican leader in the Arizona Senate. Upon her nomination to the Court, O'Connor was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate.

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving a facial challenge to New Hampshire's parental notification abortion law. The First Circuit had ruled that the law was unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement was proper. The Supreme Court vacated this judgment and remanded the case, but avoided a substantive ruling on the challenged law or a reconsideration of prior Supreme Court abortion precedent. Instead, the Court only addressed the issue of remedy, holding that invalidating a statute in its entirety "is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."

<i>Island Trees School District v. Pico</i> 1982 United States Supreme Court case

Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court split on the First Amendment issue of local school boards removing library books from junior high schools and high schools. Four Justices ruled that it was unconstitutional, four Justices concluded the contrary, and one Justice concluded that the court need not decide the question on the merits. Pico was the first Supreme Court case to consider the right to receive information in a library setting under the First Amendment, but the court's fractured plurality decision left the scope of this right unclear.

Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding whether arrests for protesting in front of a jail were constitutional.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pamela S. Karlan</span> American legal scholar (born 1959)

Pamela Susan Karlan is an American legal scholar who was the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice from February 8, 2021 until July 1, 2022. She is a professor at Stanford Law School. A leading legal scholar on voting rights and constitutional law, she previously served as U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Voting Rights in the DOJ's Civil Rights Division from 2014 to 2015.

Naomi Lynn Reice Buchwald is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Vermont statute that restricted the sale, disclosure, and use of records that revealed the prescribing practices of individual doctors violated the First Amendment.

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996), was a Supreme Court of the United States case regarding a controversy over the Fourteenth Amendment. The petitioner, M.L.B., argued that the Mississippi Chancery Courts could not terminate her parental rights on the basis that she was unable to pay the court fees. M.L.B. had been sued by S.L.J. to terminate M.L.B.'s parental rights and gain the ability to adopt the children. The judge declared in favor of S.L.J. under the premise that the decree was fair, as it was based on the fulfilling of the burden of proof by the father and his second wife with "clear and convincing evidence."

Board of Trustees of Scarsdale v. McCreary, 471 U.S. 83 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which an evenly split Court upheld per curiam a lower court's decision that the display of a privately sponsored nativity scene on public property does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal challenges to the Trump travel ban</span> Legal disputes

Executive Order 13769 was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017, and quickly became the subject of legal challenges in the federal courts of the United States. The order sought to restrict travel from seven Muslim majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The plaintiffs challenging the order argued that it contravened the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or both. On March 16, 2017, Executive Order 13769 was superseded by Executive Order 13780, which took legal objections into account and removed Iraq from affected countries. Then on September 24, 2017, Executive Order 13780 was superseded by Presidential Proclamation 9645 which is aimed at more permanently establishing travel restrictions on those countries except Sudan, while adding North Korea and Venezuela which had not previously been included.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive Order 13768</span> Executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump

Executive Order 13768 titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 25, 2017. The order stated that "sanctuary jurisdictions" including sanctuary cities that refused to comply with immigration enforcement measures would not be "eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes" by the U.S. Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security.

Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976), is a United States Supreme Court decision regarding political speech of public employees. The Court ruled in this case that public employees may be active members in a political party, but cannot allow patronage to be a deciding factor in work related decisions. The court upheld the decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of the respondent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social media use by Donald Trump</span>

Donald Trump's use of social media attracted attention worldwide since he joined Twitter in May 2009. Over nearly twelve years, Trump tweeted around 57,000 times, including about 8,000 times during the 2016 election campaign and over 25,000 times during his presidency. The White House said the tweets should be considered official statements. When Twitter banned Trump from the platform in January 2021 during the final days of his term, his handle @realDonaldTrump had over 88.9 million followers. On November 19, 2022, Twitter's new owner, Elon Musk, reinstated his account, although Trump has stated he will not use it in favor of his own social media platform, Truth Social. The first tweet since 2021 was made in August 2023 about his mugshot from Fulton County Jail, but the account has since remained inactive.

Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case involving Presidential Proclamation 9645 signed by President Donald Trump, which restricted travel into the United States by people from several nations, or by refugees without valid travel documents. Hawaii and several other states and groups challenged the Proclamation and two predecessor executive orders also issued by Trump on statutory and constitutional grounds. Citing a variety of statements by Trump and administration officials, they argued that the proclamation and its predecessor orders were motivated by anti-Muslim animus.

<i>Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump</i> American legal case

Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226 (2019), is a case at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on the use of social media as a public forum. The plaintiffs, Philip N. Cohen, Eugene Gu, Holly Figueroa O'Reilly, Nicholas Pappas, Joseph M. Papp, Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza, and Brandon Neely, are a group of Twitter users blocked by U.S. President Donald Trump's personal @realDonaldTrump account. They alleged that Twitter constitutes a public forum, and that a government official blocking access to that forum is a violation of the First Amendment. The lawsuit also named as defendants White House press secretary Sean Spicer and social media director Dan Scavino.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Derrick Johnson (activist)</span> American civil rights activist

Derrick Johnson is an American lawyer and humanitarian. He serves as the 19th President and CEO of the NAACP. He had previously served as president of its Mississippi state chapter, and vice chairman of its board of directors. Johnson is the founder of the Mississippi nonprofit group One Voice Inc., which aims to improve quality of life for African Americans through public engagement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oversight Board (Meta)</span> Appellate body of Facebook

The Oversight Board is a body that makes consequential precedent-setting content moderation decisions on the social media platforms Facebook and Instagram, in a form of "platform self-governance".

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case involving eminent domain and labor relations. In its decision, the Court held that a regulation made pursuant to the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act that required agricultural employers to allow labor organizers to regularly access their property for the purposes of union recruitment constituted a per se taking under the Fifth Amendment. Consequently, the regulation may not be enforced unless “just compensation” is provided to the employers.

Houston Community College System v. Wilson, 595 U.S. ___ (2022), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The unanimous Court held that a local government board member's freedom of speech was not abridged when he was verbally censured by his colleagues.

Phyllis Joycelyn Randall is an American politician and mental-health therapist. A Democrat, she is chair at-large of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, Virginia and the first African-American woman to chair a county board in Virginia. She was also the defendant in a notable 2019 lawsuit, Davison v. Randall, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the First Amendment precludes government officials from blocking constituents on official government social media accounts.

References

  1. Calvert, Clay (May 4, 2023). "The Supreme Court's next target: social media". The Hill . Retrieved June 9, 2023.
  2. Sherman, Mark (March 15, 2024). "SCOTUS Rules Public Officials Can Sometimes Be Sued For Blocking Critics On Social Media". Associated Press . Retrieved March 15, 2024 via Huffington Post.
  3. "Garnier v. O'Connor-Ratcliffe". July 27, 2022. Retrieved June 9, 2023.
  4. Fritze, John (October 30, 2023). "Can a city official 'cancel' a constituent? How a fight over an emoji wound up at the Supreme Court". USA Today . Retrieved October 30, 2023.