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

UK finally admits clear evidence linking Pakistanis and child grooming gangs

Business / 8 hours ago

Trump family announces Trump Mobile: Made in America, for America

conflict / 8 hours ago

Trump leaves G7 early after urging evacuation of Tehran

Crime

UK finally admits clear evidence linking Pakistanis and child grooming gangs

Published on June 17, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Quick Hit:

After years of denial and political cover-ups, the UK government has formally acknowledged a disturbing link between Pakistani-heritage men and child grooming gangs. A scathing new review has prompted Prime Minister Keir Starmer to reverse course and launch a full national inquiry into the widespread abuse.

Key Details:

The Casey Review found “clear evidence” of Pakistani men’s overrepresentation in grooming gangs and accused authorities of ignoring the abuse to avoid accusations of racism.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper confirmed over 800 historic child sex abuse cases will be reopened and prosecuted where possible.
The Labour Party and Prime Minister Starmer were previously opposed to a national inquiry, with critics calling this reversal a politically motivated “smokescreen.”

Diving Deeper:

The British government has finally acknowledged a link between Pakistani-heritage men and the grooming gang epidemic that has plagued communities across England for decades. The admission comes following the release of a damning public review led by Baroness Louise Casey, which uncovered years of institutional failure, racial sensitivity, and political cowardice.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper presented the findings in Parliament, confirming that the Casey Review had “identified clear evidence of over-representation among suspects of Asian and Pakistani-heritage men.” She condemned the systematic rape of vulnerable girls—some as young as 10—and the authorities’ “unforgivable” failure to act.

“The sexual exploitation of children by grooming gangs is one of the most horrific crimes,” Cooper said, noting that too many warnings had been ignored over the last 15 years. She announced that the government would adopt all of Baroness Casey’s recommendations and reopen more than 800 historic cases.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who previously dismissed calls for a national inquiry as “far-right misinformation,” abruptly changed course over the weekend and agreed to a full inquiry with legal authority to compel testimony. This reversal followed mounting pressure from campaigners like Dame Jasvinder Sanghera, Elon Musk, and Reform UK’s Nigel Farage.

Labour MP Sarah Champion, once ousted for raising alarms about Pakistani grooming gangs in her Rotherham constituency, welcomed the inquiry. “There’s a real sense justice has not been handed out fairly,” she said, accusing officials of failing victims for fear of “causing offense.”

The Casey review also pointed to illegal immigration as a contributing factor and called for mandatory ethnicity data collection in child exploitation cases. Critics argue that authorities in Labour-run areas turned a blind eye to the abuse—some allegedly in exchange for votes—treating white working-class girls as expendable while shielding perpetrators.

Former detective and grooming whistleblower Maggie Oliver expressed skepticism, warning that unless the inquiry is led by Baroness Casey, it risks becoming another whitewash. “This is about gross criminal neglect at the top of policing, at the top of government, at the top of social services,” Oliver said.

While the inquiry marks a long-overdue step toward accountability, some warn it may be politically perilous for Starmer. As former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, he held a central role when many of these abuses first surfaced. And with many of the cover-ups tied to Labour councils, the fallout could deepen public distrust in the party.

Business

Trump family announces Trump Mobile: Made in America, for America

Published on June 17, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Quick Hit:

On the 10-year anniversary of Donald Trump’s iconic campaign launch, the Trump family announced the debut of Trump Mobile, a new wireless company offering American-built smartphones, 5G coverage, and a values-driven alternative to Big Tech carriers.

Key Details:

Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump introduced Trump Mobile’s flagship service Monday, calling it a “transformational” alternative aimed at “our nation’s hardest-working people.”
The “47 Plan,” priced at $47.45/month, offers unlimited talk, text, and data, free international calls to U.S. military families, telehealth, roadside assistance, and no credit checks.
Trump Mobile’s customer support is fully U.S.-based and live 24/7—“not automated,” the company says—while a new American-made “T1 Phone” is slated for release in August.

Diving Deeper:

Marking ten years since President Donald Trump descended the golden escalator to launch his first campaign, the Trump Organization on Monday announced its boldest private sector move yet: Trump Mobile.

Flanked by company executives, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump unveiled the new cellular service, touting it as a patriotic, people-first alternative to legacy providers. “We’re building on the movement to put America first,” Trump Jr. said in a statement. “We will deliver the highest levels of quality and service.”

The cornerstone of Trump Mobile is the 47 Plan. Offered for $47.45/month, the plan includes unlimited data, full 5G coverage across all three major carriers, and a suite of benefits tailored to middle-class families, truckers, veterans, and anyone tired of paying premiums to companies that don’t share their values.

Among the key perks: 24/7 American-based customer service (with “real people,” not bots), comprehensive device protection, roadside assistance through Drive America, and telehealth services including mental health support and prescription delivery. Most notably, the plan includes free international calling to over 100 countries—an effort the Trump family says honors U.S. military families stationed abroad.

“We’re especially proud to offer free long-distance calling to our military members and their families,” said Eric Trump. “Those serving overseas should always be able to stay connected to the people they love back home.”

Unlike traditional providers, Trump Mobile advertises no contracts and no credit checks, appealing to a demographic long underserved by mainstream telecom giants. “Hard-working Americans deserve a wireless service that’s affordable, reflects their values, and delivers reliable quality they can count on,” Eric Trump added.

The company is also preparing to launch the T1 Phone in August—a sleek, gold smartphone “engineered for performance” and “proudly designed and built in the United States.” With that, the Trump Organization is not just entering the mobile market—it’s staking a claim as a direct competitor to Apple and Samsung.