Facebook, Twitter Curbs by Government Get Supreme Court Review

The US Supreme Court will hear a recurring dispute about whether government officials can block people from their personal Facebook and Twitter accounts over entries related to their work.

The two cases accepted Monday are from California and Michigan, and come with the court set to rule in another set of high-profile social media cases.

O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier involves two elected California school board members who blocked a student’s parents, saying they “spammed” their posts and tweets with repetitive replies and comments. Similarly, Lindke v. Freed involves a city manager in eastern Michigan who blocked a resident critical of the city’s Covid restrictions.

The officials all used their personal accounts to communicate with the public about their jobs.

Courts are split on how they determine which social media feeds are subject to First Amendment guarantees because they are sufficiently government-related and which ones are private. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in the California case that the parents’ rights were violated. The Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the Michigan official.

The issue gained prominence nationally when then-President Donald Trump blocked critics from his Twitter feed. A federal appellate court found Trump violated the First Amendment, but the Supreme Court tossed that ruling as moot after he left office.

The justices have already this term heard a pair of disputes about whether social media companies can be liable for content posted by third parties, particularly when the outlet targets certain material at users based on their past activities on the site.

The justices also have been asked to weigh in on challenges to Florida and Texas laws limiting when social media companies can block certain users. Those cases are rooted in conservative politics but could have broader implications.

The case is O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, U.S., No. 22-324 and Lindke v. Freed, U.S., No. 22-611.