Lindke v. Freed

Supreme Court of the United States
601 U.S. 187 (2024)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A public official's social media activity constitutes state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only if the official possessed actual authority to speak on the State's behalf on a particular matter and purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant posts.

Facts:

James Freed created a private Facebook profile while in college, later converting it to a public 'page' and eventually updating it to reflect his appointment as the city manager of Port Huron, Michigan.
Freed maintained the page himself and posted a mix of personal content, such as family photos and Bible verses, and job-related information, such as city policy updates and public health statistics.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Freed posted information about the city's response to the virus and hospitalization numbers alongside personal posts.
Kevin Lindke, a resident of Port Huron, commented on Freed's posts to express displeasure with the city's handling of the pandemic.
Freed initially deleted Lindke's critical comments and subsequently blocked Lindke from the page entirely.
Because of the block, Lindke was unable to comment on any of Freed's posts, regardless of whether they were personal or official in nature.

Procedural Posture:

Lindke sued Freed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment violations.
The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Freed, finding his social media activity was not state action.
Lindke appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, ruling that Freed acted in a personal capacity.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a public official's blocking of a user from a personal social media account that contains job-related information constitute state action subject to First Amendment scrutiny under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Barrett

Yes, but only if the official had actual authority to speak for the government and purported to use that authority in the relevant posts. The Court emphasized that public officials retain their own First Amendment rights and do not lose their private status merely by entering public service. To distinguish between private conduct and state action, courts must apply a two-pronged test. First, the official must have actual authority rooted in written law or longstanding custom to speak on behalf of the State regarding the specific matter at issue. Second, the official must purport to exercise that authority in the specific social media post. The Court noted that an official who lacks the power to make official announcements cannot be engaged in state action, even if the post looks official. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the nature of the technology matters; because blocking a user prevents interaction with the entire page, an official may face liability if they block a user from a mixed-use page that contains any official state action, as the official cannot selectively block access only to official posts.

Analysis:

This decision resolves a split among the Circuit Courts regarding how to apply the state-action doctrine to public officials' social media accounts. By establishing a rigorous two-part test, the Court rejected more flexible approaches that relied primarily on the appearance or purpose of the account. This ruling significantly protects the private speech rights of government employees by ensuring they are not treated as 'on the clock' 24/7 simply because they discuss their work. However, it also imposes a burden on officials to clearly delineate their personal and professional social media presence. The distinction regarding 'blocking' is particularly significant; because blocking is a page-wide action, officials with 'mixed-use' accounts face higher litigation risks than those who maintain strictly separate personal and official pages.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Lindke v. Freed (2024)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"