Supreme Court unanimously rules that public officials can be sued for blocking critics on social media

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett Justice noted that the personal social media accounts of public officials often present an ‘ambiguous’ status because they mix official announcements with personal content.

The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Friday that government officials who post about work-related topics on their personal social media accounts can be held liable for violating the First Amendment rights of constituents by blocking their access or deleting their critical comments.

In a 15-page opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted that the personal social media accounts of public officials often present an “ambiguous” status because they mix official announcements with personal content.

The court ruled in two cases where people were blocked after leaving critical comments on social media accounts of public officials.

The first case involved two elected members of a California school board — the Poway Unified School District Board of Trustees — who blocked concerned parents from their Facebook and Twitter accounts after leaving critical comments.

The court upheld the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that said the board members had violated the parents’ free speech rights.

The second case before the court concerned James Freed, Port Huron, Michigan’s city manager who had blocked constituent Kevin Lindke from commenting on his Facebook page after deleting his remarks about the city’s COVID-19 pandemic policies.

Lindke believed that Freed had violated the First Amendment by doing so and sued Freed.

Freed maintained that he launched his Facebook page long before becoming a public official, arguing that most of the content on his account concerned family-related matters.

Justice Barrett explained:

Like millions of Americans, James Freed maintained a Facebook account on which he posted about a wide range of topics, including his family and his job. Like most of those Americans, Freed occasionally received unwelcome comments on his posts. In response, Freed took a step familiar to Facebook users: He deleted the comments and blocked those who made them.

For most people with a Facebook account, that would have been the end of it. But Kevin Lindke, one of the unwelcome commenters, sued Freed for violating his right to free speech. Because the First Amendment binds only the government, this claim is a nonstarter if Freed posted as a private citizen. Freed, however, is not only a private citizen but also the city manager of Port Huron, Michigan — and while Freed insists that his Facebook account was strictly personal, Lindke argues that Freed acted in his official capacity when he silenced Lindke’s speech.

When a government official posts about job-related topics on social media, it can be difficult to tell whether the speech is official or private. We hold that such speech is attributable to the State only if the official (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when he spoke on social media.

In the end, the high court sent Lindke’s case back to the Sixth Circuit Federal Appeals Court for a second look.

Perhaps reflecting continued ambiguity following the court’s ruling, both defendant Freed and plaintiff Lindke declared victory.

“I am very pleased with the outcome the justices came to,” Freed told ABC News in a statement. “The Court rejected the plaintiff’s appearance test and further refined a test for review by the Sixth Circuit. We are extremely confident we will prevail there once more.”

Lindke was more effusive and told ABC News that he was “ecstatic” with the court’s decision.

“A 9-0 decision is very decisive and is a clear indicator that public officials cannot hide behind personal social media accounts when discussing official business,” said Lindke.

Legal experts called attention to the persistence of gray area in the law regarding social media due to the narrowness of the court’s decision.

“This case doesn’t tell us much new about how to understand the liability of the 20 million people who work in local, state, administrative or federal government in the U.S. … just that the question is complicated,” Kate Klonick, an expert on online-platform regulation who teaches at St. John’s Law School, told The Washington Post.

Katie Fallow, senior counsel for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, told the Post that the court’s ruling does not sufficiently address public officials’ widespread use of personal “shadow accounts,” which constituents often perceive as official.

Fallow said the court was “right to hold that public officials can’t immunize themselves from First Amendment liability merely by using their personal accounts to conduct official business.”

We are disappointed, though, that the Court did not adopt the more practical test used by the majority of the courts of appeals, which appropriately balanced the free speech interests of public officials with those of the people who want to speak to them on their social media accounts.

According to The Hill, the Biden administration and a bipartisan group of 17 states and National Republican Senatorial Committee sided with officials, arguing in favor of their blocks, while the ACLU backed the cons

Friday’s ruling is only the first of several this term that deal with the relationship between government and social media.

“On Feb. 26, the justices heard argument[s] in a pair of challenges to controversial laws in Florida and Texas that seek to regulate large social-media companies,” explained Amy Howe on Scotusblog.com. “And on Monday the justices will hear oral arguments in a dispute alleging that the federal government violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media companies to remove false or misleading content. Decisions in those cases are expected by summer.”

Up Next

Actress posing as gender-confused girl prescribed testosterone within minutes at Quebec clinic

Don't Miss

Argentina’s Milei Goes All in on ‘Shock’ Policies in Bid to Save Country’s Economy

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Trump makes impact on G7 before he makes his exit

conflict / 12 hours ago

Trump: ‘We’ have control over Iranian airspace; know where Khomeini is hiding

conflict / 13 hours ago

Trump Threatens Strike on Khamenei as Israel Pounds Iranian Military Command

Business

Trump makes impact on G7 before he makes his exit

Published on June 17, 2025

Todayville

Trump Rips Into Obama and Trudeau at G7 for a “Very Big Mistake” on Russia

At the G7 in Canada, President Trump didn’t just speak—he delivered a headline-making indictment.

Standing alongside Canada’s Prime Minister, he directly blasted Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau, accusing them of committing a “very big mistake” by booting Russia out of the G8. He warned that this move didn’t deter conflict—it unleashed it, and he insists it paved the way for the war in Ukraine.

Subscribe to The Vigilant Fox

Before the working sessions began, the two leaders fielded questions. The first topic: the ongoing trade negotiations between the U.S. and Canada. Trump didn’t hesitate to point out that the issue wasn’t personal—it was philosophical.

“It’s not so much holding up. I think we have different concepts,” Trump said. “I have a tariff concept, Mark [Carney] has a different concept, which is something that some people like.”

He made it clear that he prefers a more straightforward approach. “I’ve always been a tariff person. It’s simple, it’s easy, it’s precise and it just goes very quickly.”

Carney, he added, favors a more intricate framework—“also very good,” Trump said. The goal now, according to Trump, is to examine both strategies and find a path forward. “We’re going to look at both and we’re going to come out with something hopefully.”

When asked whether a deal could be finalized in a matter of days or weeks, Trump didn’t overpromise, but he left the door open. “It’s achievable but both parties have to agree.”

Then the conversation took an unexpected turn.

Trump went off script and straight to one of the most explosive foreign policy critiques of the day. Without any prompting, he shifted from trade to Russia’s removal from the G8, calling it one of the most consequential mistakes in recent memory.

Standing next to Canada’s Prime Minister, whose predecessor helped lead that push, Trump argued that isolating Moscow may have backfired. “The G7 used to be the G8,” he said, pointing to the moment Russia was kicked out.

He didn’t hold back. “Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau didn’t want to have Russia in, and I would say that was a mistake because I think you wouldn’t have a war right now if you had Russia in.”

This wasn’t just a jab at past leaders. Trump was drawing a direct line from that decision to the war in Ukraine. According to him, expelling Russia took away any real chance at diplomacy before things spiraled.

“They threw Russia out, which I claimed was a very big mistake even though I wasn’t in politics then, I was loud about it.” For Trump, diplomacy doesn’t mean agreement—it means keeping adversaries close enough to negotiate.

“It was a mistake in that you spent so much time talking about Russia, but he’s no longer at the table. It makes life more complicated. You wouldn’t have had the war.”

Then he made it personal. Trump compared two timelines—one with him in office, and one without. “You wouldn’t have a war right now if Trump were president four years ago,” he said. “But it didn’t work out that way.”

Before reporters could even process Trump’s comments on Russia, he shifted gears again—this time turning to Iran.

Asked whether there had been any signs that Tehran wanted to step back from confrontation, Trump didn’t hesitate. “Yeah,” he said. “They’d like to talk.”

The admission was short but revealing. For the first time publicly, Trump confirmed that Iran had signaled interest in easing tensions. But he made it clear they may have waited too long.

“They should have done that before,” he said, referencing a missed 60-day negotiation window. “On the 61st day I said we don’t have a deal.”

Even so, he acknowledged that both sides remain under pressure. “They have to make a deal and it’s painful for both parties but I would say Iran is not winning this war.”

Then came the warning, delivered with unmistakable urgency. “They should talk and they should talk IMMEDIATELY before it’s too late.”

Eventually, the conversation turned back to domestic issues: specifically, immigration and crime.

He confirmed he’s directing ICE to focus its efforts on sanctuary cities, which he accused of protecting violent criminals for political purposes.

He pointed directly at major Democrat-led cities, saying the worst problems are concentrated in deep blue urban centers. “I look at New York, I look at Chicago. I mean you got a really bad governor in Chicago and a bad mayor, but the governor is probably the worst in the country, Pritzker.”

And he didn’t stop there. “I look at how that city has been overrun by criminals and New York and L.A., look at L.A. Those people weren’t from L.A. They weren’t from California most of those people. Many of those people.”

According to Trump, the crime surge isn’t just a local failure—it’s a direct consequence of what he called a border catastrophe under President Biden. “Biden allowed 21 million people to come into our country. Of that, vast numbers of those people were murderers, killers, people from gangs, people from jails. They emptied their jails into the U.S. Most of those people are in the cities.”

“All blue cities. All Democrat-run cities.”

He closed with a vow—one aimed squarely at the ballot box. Trump said he’ll do everything in his power to stop Democrats from using illegal immigration to influence elections.

“They think they’re going to use them to vote. It’s not going to happen.”

Just as the press corps seemed ready for more, Prime Minister Carney stepped in.

The momentum had clearly shifted toward Trump, and Carney recognized it. With a calm smile and hands slightly raised, he moved to wrap things up.

“If you don’t mind, I’m going to exercise my role, if you will, as the G7 Chair,” he said. “Since we have a few more minutes with the president and his team. And then we actually have to start the meeting to address these big issues, so…”

Trump didn’t object. He didn’t have to.

By then, the damage (or the impact) had already been done. He had steered the conversation, dropped one headline after another, and reshaped the narrative before the summit even began.

By the time Carney tried to regain control, it was already too late.

Wherever Trump goes, he doesn’t just attend the event—he becomes the event.

Thanks for reading! This post took time and care to put together, and we did our best to give this story the coverage it deserved.

If you like my work and want to support me and my team and help keep this page going strong, the most powerful thing you can do is sign up for the email list and become a paid subscriber.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support.

This story was made possible with the help of Overton —I couldn’t have done it without him.

If you’d like to support his growing network, consider subscribing for the month or the year. Your support helps him expand his team and cover more stories like this one.

We both truly appreciate your support!

Overton

Your window into a world beyond the headlines.

conflict

Trump: ‘We’ have control over Iranian airspace; know where Khomeini is hiding

Published on June 17, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Sarah Roderick-Fitch

President Donald Trump broke from a meeting with his national security team Tuesday to share a series of social media posts signaling trouble for Iran.

The president announced control over Iranian airspace and knowledge of where Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran’s supreme leader, is being held while also calling for an “unconditional surrender.”

Trump claims Khomeini is “safe” for now but wouldn’t rule out killing the leader.

“We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

Israel has conducted five days of bombings inside of Iran an an attempt to destroy facilities housing its nuclear program and other military infrastructure. Iran has retaliated, bombing Israel, including civilian locations.

Before the president’s post on the Iranian leader’s whereabouts, he touted complete control over Iranian airspace.

“We have complete and total control of the skies over Iran. Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn’t compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured ‘stuff.’ Nobody does it better than the good ol’ USA,” Trump posted.

It is unclear if the president was referring to U.S., Israeli, or a combination when talking about “we.”

Achieving control over Iranian airspace could be key to any U.S. involvement in carrying out missions to eliminate nuclear capabilities inside the Islamic Republic.

The Iranian Fordow nuclear site, located deep below a mountain, may only be penetrated by a Massive Ordinance Penetrator, also called a bunker buster. Currently, Israel is not equipped with a bunker buster and a B-2 bomber used to drop the explosive device.

The posts come as Trump swiftly returned to the White House early Tuesday morning, ahead of schedule, from the G7 summit in Alberta, Canada.

Upon returning to the White House early Tuesday, the president said he would head to the situation room. He argued that returning to the White House allowed him to learn more.

Trump told reporters onboard Air Force One earlier Tuesday that he wasn’t looking for a ceasefire but is seeking “a real end” with the Islamic Republic “giving up entirely” on their nuclear weapons program.

The president underscored previous comments regarding Iran not having nuclear weapons.

“Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. It’s very simple – you don’t have to go too deep into it. They just can’t have a nuclear weapon,” Trump told reporters.

“I’m not too much in the mood to negotiate [with Iran],” Trump told reporters. “An end, a real end, not a ceasefire, real end.”

Trump posted an ominous message to Iran and its people Monday afternoon, warning them to evacuate.

“Iran should have signed the ‘deal’ I told them to sign. What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!” the president posted to Truth Social.

He followed the warning with another post, reiterating that Iran should not have nuclear weapons.

“AMERICA FIRST means many GREAT things, including the fact that, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!” he posted later.

As the conflict enters the fifth day of fighting, Israel Defense Forces announced that it had “eliminated” another top Iranian military commander.