Connect with us

International

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

Published

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Doug Mainwaring

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.” 

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

Business

Dallas mayor invites NYers to first ‘sanctuary city from socialism’

Published on

From The Center Square

By

After the self-described socialist Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic primary for mayor in New York, Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson invited New Yorkers and others to move to Dallas.

Mamdani has vowed to implement a wide range of tax increases on corporations and property and to “shift the tax burden” to “richer and whiter neighborhoods.”

New York businesses and individuals have already been relocating to states like Texas, which has no corporate or personal income taxes.

Johnson, a Black mayor and former Democrat, switched parties to become a Republican in 2023 after opposing a city council tax hike, The Center Square reported.

“Dear Concerned New York City Resident or Business Owner: Don’t panic,” Johnson said. “Just move to Dallas, where we strongly support our police, value our partners in the business community, embrace free markets, shun excessive regulation, and protect the American Dream!”

Fortune 500 companies and others in recent years continue to relocate their headquarters to Dallas; it’s also home to the new Texas Stock Exchange (TXSE). The TXSE will provide an alternative to the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq and there are already more finance professionals in Texas than in New York, TXSE Group Inc. founder and CEO James Lee argues.

From 2020-2023, the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington MSA reported the greatest percentage of growth in the country of 34%, The Center Square reported.

Johnson on Thursday continued his invitation to New Yorkers and others living in “socialist” sanctuary cities, saying on social media, “If your city is (or is about to be) a sanctuary for criminals, mayhem, job-killing regulations, and failed socialist experiments, I have a modest invitation for you: MOVE TO DALLAS. You can call us the nation’s first official ‘Sanctuary City from Socialism.’”

“We value free enterprise, law and order, and our first responders. Common sense and the American Dream still reside here. We have all your big-city comforts and conveniences without the suffocating vice grip of government bureaucrats.”

As many Democratic-led cities joined a movement to defund their police departments, Johnson prioritized police funding and supporting law and order.

“Back in the 1800s, people moving to Texas for greater opportunities would etch ‘GTT’ for ‘Gone to Texas’ on their doors moving to the Mexican colony of Tejas,” Johnson continued, referring to Americans who moved to the Mexican colony of Tejas to acquire land grants from the Mexican government.

“If you’re a New Yorker heading to Dallas, maybe try ‘GTD’ to let fellow lovers of law and order know where you’ve gone,” Johnson said.

Modern-day GTT movers, including a large number of New Yorkers, cite high personal income taxes, high property taxes, high costs of living, high crime, and other factors as their reasons for leaving their states and moving to Texas, according to multiple reports over the last few years.

In response to Johnson’s invitation, Gov. Greg Abbott said, “Dallas is the first self-declared “Sanctuary City from Socialism. The State of Texas will provide whatever support is needed to fulfill that mission.”

The governor has already been doing this by signing pro-business bills into law and awarding Texas Enterprise Grants to businesses that relocate or expand operations in Texas, many of which are doing so in the Dallas area.

“Texas truly is the Best State for Business and stands as a model for the nation,” Abbott said. “Freedom is a magnet, and Texas offers entrepreneurs and hardworking Texans the freedom to succeed. When choosing where to relocate or expand their businesses, more innovative industry leaders recognize the competitive advantages found only in Texas. The nation’s leading CEOs continually cite our pro-growth economic policies – with no corporate income tax and no personal income tax – along with our young, skilled, diverse, and growing workforce, easy access to global markets, robust infrastructure, and predictable business-friendly regulations.”

Continue Reading

Crime

National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in 324 Defendants Charged in Connection with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud

Published on

James Lyons-Weiler's avatar By James Lyons-Weiler

A 50-district dragnet uncovers transnational fraud, AI-driven deception, and systemic theft from Medicare, Medicaid, and U.S. taxpayers totaling over $14.6 billion

The Department of Justice announced Monday the outcome of the 2025 National Health Care Fraud Takedown, the largest coordinated enforcement action against health care fraud in U.S. history. Federal prosecutors have filed criminal charges against 324 individuals across 50 federal judicial districts and 12 State Attorneys General’s Offices, including 96 licensed medical professionals—among them doctors, nurse practitioners, and pharmacists. The defendants stand accused of orchestrating fraudulent schemes amounting to more than $14.6 billion in intended losses to Medicare, Medicaid, and other federally funded programs.

This historic enforcement action more than doubles the previous national record of $6 billion. As part of this effort, federal and state authorities have seized over $245 million in cash, luxury vehicles, cryptocurrency, and other high-value assets. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) separately reported that it successfully prevented more than $4 billion in fraudulent payments in the months leading up to the Takedown. CMS also confirmed that it suspended or revoked the billing privileges of 205 providers linked to fraudulent activity. In the civil domain, federal agencies filed actions against 20 defendants tied to $14.2 million in alleged fraud and finalized civil settlements with an additional 106 defendants, totaling $34.3 million in recovered funds.

The Takedown was led by the Health Care Fraud Unit of the DOJ Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and carried out in close coordination with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices nationwide, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and multiple state law enforcement agencies. Medicaid Fraud Control Units in 18 states also played a central role in investigating and prosecuting the cases.

In remarks accompanying the announcement, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. emphasized that the agency would aggressively work with law enforcement to eliminate the “pervasive health care fraud that drove up costs and harmed patients under the former administration.” Attorney General Pamela Bondi echoed the urgency, calling the action “justice delivered to those who steal from taxpayers and endanger lives.” Matthew R. Galeotti, head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, underscored the gravity of the crimes targeted, noting that fraudulent schemes often lead not only to financial losses but also to direct patient harm, including medically unnecessary procedures and worsened addiction outcomes.

FBI Director Kash Patel emphasized that this Takedown represents the largest in the bureau’s history, highlighting the theft of more than $13 billion from federal health programs. Acting Inspector General Juliet T. Hodgkins of HHS-OIG described the scale of harm as unprecedented and reaffirmed the agency’s commitment to safeguarding the public.

Among the most significant components of this national operation was Operation Gold Rush, which uncovered a sophisticated transnational conspiracy responsible for over $10 billion in fraudulent Medicare claims. The scheme was orchestrated by foreign nationals who, acting as a coordinated criminal enterprise, acquired more than 30 medical supply companies across the United States. These companies had already been enrolled in Medicare, and were then used to funnel false claims for urinary catheters and other durable medical equipment. Stolen identities of over one million Americans were used to submit these claims, which had not been requested by patients, nor ordered by physicians.

The conspiracy relied on straw owners sent from Russia and Estonia to the U.S., who were directed by co-conspirators communicating through encrypted channels. Using fraudulent documentation, these straw owners opened U.S. bank accounts for laundering proceeds. Though the organization submitted over $10.6 billion in claims, CMS successfully blocked most of the payments. Only approximately $41 million reached the conspirators via Medicare, but approximately $900 million was disbursed by Medicare supplemental insurers before the fraud was detected.

Four individuals were arrested in Estonia and eight others were apprehended at major U.S. airports and border crossings as they attempted to flee. Law enforcement seized approximately $27.7 million in fraud proceeds from this operation.

Federal prosecutors filed related charges in five districts: the Central District of California, the Middle District of Florida, the Northern District of Illinois, the District of New Jersey, and the Eastern District of New York.

In a separate scheme centered in Illinois, the Department brought charges against five individuals, including two executives from Pakistani marketing firms, who used artificial intelligence to generate fake audio recordings of Medicare beneficiaries purporting to consent to receive medical equipment. This fraudulent data was sold to laboratories and equipment suppliers, which used it to file $703 million in false claims. Approximately $418 million was ultimately paid out on these claims, and the government has so far seized $44.7 million in related assets. The fraud involved not only AI-based deception but also the illegal sale and laundering of stolen personal health information.

Another case exposed a billing company executive based in Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates who conspired with addiction treatment centers to submit approximately $650 million in fraudulent claims to Arizona Medicaid. Some services billed were never rendered, and others were so deficient as to provide no therapeutic value. The operation targeted vulnerable individuals, including members of Native American tribes and the homeless. Kickbacks were paid for patient referrals, and the executive used at least $25 million in illicit funds to purchase a $2.9 million home in Dubai.

The Department also charged 49 defendants in connection with over $1.17 billion in fraudulent claims tied to telemedicine and genetic testing. In one Florida case, an owner of both telemedicine and durable medical equipment companies orchestrated a $46 million scheme involving deceptive telemarketing campaigns that generated unauthorized genetic testing and equipment claims. The Department continues to prioritize cases involving telehealth-based fraud, which often exploits unwitting patients through misrepresented or manufactured consent.

Share

Prescription opioid diversion was another central focus of the Takedown. A total of 74 defendants, including 44 licensed medical professionals, were charged across 58 criminal cases for illegally distributing more than 15 million opioid pills. One Texas pharmacy alone was responsible for over 3 million of these pills, which included highly addictive substances such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, and carisoprodol. The DEA concurrently announced 93 administrative actions to revoke licenses and registrations of pharmacies and providers implicated in the unlawful handling of controlled substances.

Other cases include a $28.7 million scheme in Tennessee involving medications falsely billed to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Fund, where prescriptions were neither authorized by physicians nor dispensed as claimed. In separate indictments filed in Washington and California, medical providers were charged with stealing fentanyl and hydrocodone intended for pediatric patients under anesthesia.

The geographic scope of the Takedown was vast. In total, 189 federal cases were filed across all 50 federal judicial districts, and 91 state-level cases were brought in 12 states by participating Attorneys General. This unprecedented coordination underscores the national impact and bipartisan support for rooting out fraud in American health care systems.

To enhance ongoing efforts, the Department also announced the establishment of a new Health Care Fraud Data Fusion Center.

This joint initiative brings together specialists from the DOJ’s Health Care Fraud Unit, HHS-OIG, FBI, and CMS to leverage cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and large-scale data analytics to detect emergent fraud patterns. The Fusion Center aligns with Executive Order 14243, “Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos,” which mandates interagency cooperation and data-sharing to reduce redundancy and increase efficiency in enforcement.

Principal Assistant Deputy Chief Jacob Foster, Assistant Deputy Chief Rebecca Yuan, Trial Attorney Miriam L. Glaser Dauermann, and Data Analyst Elizabeth Nolte coordinated this year’s Takedown from within the DOJ’s Health Care Fraud Unit. Prosecutors from the National Rapid Response team and regional Strike Forces in 27 districts led casework alongside U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and 18 state Medicaid Fraud Control Units. Additional support came from the Department of Labor, VA-OIG, IRS Criminal Investigation, Homeland Security Investigations, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the Office of Personnel Management, the United States Postal Service OIG, and numerous other federal and local agencies.

Image sources: US DOJ

Share Popular Rationalism

Continue Reading

Trending

X