International
Supreme Court unanimously rules that public officials can be sued for blocking critics on social media
From LifeSiteNews
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.
Barrett concluded:
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.”
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
At Tesla’s Austin headquarters, investors backed Musk’s 12-step plan that ties his potential trillion-dollar payout to a series of aggressive financial and operational milestones, including raising the company’s valuation from roughly $1.4 trillion to $8.5 trillion and selling one million humanoid robots within a decade. Musk hailed the outcome as a turning point for Tesla’s future.
“What we’re about to embark upon is not merely a new chapter of the future of Tesla but a whole new book,” Musk said, as The New York Times reported.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
The decision cements investor confidence in Musk’s “moonshot” management style and reinforces the belief that Tesla’s success depends heavily on its founder and his leadership.
Tesla Annual meeting starting now
https://t.co/j1KHf3k6ch— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 6, 2025
“Those who claim the plan is ‘too large’ ignore the scale of ambition that has historically defined Tesla’s trajectory,” the Florida State Board of Administration said in a securities filing describing why it voted for Mr. Musk’s pay plan. “A company that went from near bankruptcy to global leadership in E.V.s and clean energy under similar frameworks has earned the right to use incentive models that reward moonshot performance.”
Investors like Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood defended Tesla’s decision, saying the plan aligns shareholder rewards with company performance.
“I do not understand why investors are voting against Elon’s pay package when they and their clients would benefit enormously if he and his incredible team meet such high goals,” Wood wrote on X.
Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, Norges Bank Investment Management — one of Tesla’s largest shareholders — broke ranks, however, and voted against the pay plan, saying that the package was excessive.
“While we appreciate the significant value created under Mr. Musk’s visionary role, we are concerned about the total size of the award, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk,” the firm said.
The vote comes months after Musk wrapped up his short-lived government role under President Donald Trump. In February, Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team sparked a firestorm when they announced plans to eliminate the U.S. Agency for International Development, drawing backlash from Democrats and prompting protests targeting Musk and his companies, including Tesla.
Back in May, Musk announced that his “scheduled time” leading DOGE had ended.
Kazakhstan is officially joining the Abraham Accords, becoming the first nation to do so during President Trump’s second term — and signaling a renewed push for peace and stability across the Middle East and Central Asia. Trump made the announcement Thursday on Truth Social, writing, “I just held a great call between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, of Israel, and President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, of Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan is the first Country of my Second Term to join the Abraham Accords, the first of many.” He continued, “This is a major step forward in building bridges across the World. Today, more Nations are lining up to embrace Peace and Prosperity through my Abraham Accords. We will soon announce a Signing Ceremony to make it official, and there are many more Countries trying to join this club of STRENGTH. So much more to come in uniting Countries for Stability and Growth — Real progress, real results. BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS!”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed the announcement, calling Trump “the world’s ultimate negotiator.” Rubio said in a post that “the American people have the ultimate advocate and champion for peace in @realDonaldTrump,” adding that Kazakhstan’s entry “builds on President Trump’s unmatched record of delivering results.” The move represents a significant diplomatic step for Kazakhstan, a Muslim-majority nation that has long sought to balance relations between Russia, China, and the West while maintaining economic ties with Israel and the United States.
According to senior adviser Steve Witkoff, the agreement could be just the start of another wave of normalization. Witkoff told Breitbart News there is “big energy” behind four to six additional countries joining “in the next couple of months,” pointing to Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Armenia, and Azerbaijan as likely candidates. Former Arkansas Governor and U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee similarly suggested during a Breitbart Founders Club Roundtable that Saudi Arabia remains the most consequential prospective addition. Huckabee highlighted the United Arab Emirates’ economic transformation since joining the Accords as an example of the tangible benefits for participating nations.
Rubio has also met with Syrian interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa, who expressed interest in lifting sanctions to attract foreign investment. While al-Sharaa acknowledged that joining the Abraham Accords may not yet be realistic for Syria given tensions with Israel, he signaled openness to long-term normalization under the right conditions.
Trump, who returned to office in January, vowed throughout his campaign and transition to expand the Abraham Accords beyond their original signatories — Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan — and hinted earlier this year at progress with Saudi Arabia. “They’ll join in their own time,” he told business leaders at the 2025 Saudi-U.S. Investment Forum. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is scheduled to visit Washington on November 18, while al-Sharaa is expected to arrive next week for meetings at the White House.
The original Abraham Accords, signed in September 2020, reshaped diplomatic relations in the Middle East under Trump’s first term. With Kazakhstan now on board and more nations signaling interest, Trump’s second-term foreign policy is again centering on a message of peace through strength — and a vision of an American-led era of regional cooperation grounded in security, prosperity, and faith.
B.C. government laid groundwork for turning private property into Aboriginal land
The era of Climate Change Alarmism is over
Danish Cows Collapsing Under Mandatory Methane-Reducing Additive
A Story So Good Not Even The Elbows Up Crew Could Ruin It
-
Daily Caller2 days agoUS Eating Canada’s Lunch While Liberals Stall – Trump Admin Announces Record-Shattering Energy Report
-
espionage21 hours agoU.S. Charges Three More Chinese Scholars in Wuhan Bio-Smuggling Case, Citing Pattern of Foreign Exploitation in American Research Labs
-
Business1 day agoU.S. Supreme Court frosty on Trump’s tariff power as world watches
-
Energy2 days agoEby should put up, shut up, or pay up
-
Justice1 day agoCarney government lets Supreme Court decision stand despite outrage over child porn ruling
-
Business2 days agoThe Liberal budget is a massive FAILURE: Former Liberal Cabinet Member Dan McTeague
-
Daily Caller1 day agoUN Chief Rages Against Dying Of Climate Alarm Light
-
Business11 hours ago
Here’s what pundits and analysts get wrong about the Carney government’s first budget