After more than a year from the originating lower court cases, Supreme Court says elected officials can block users on social media in some, but not all, circumstances.
Social media is a powerful engagement tool employed by local governments and public officials in a variety of roles. It’s used as a medium for sharing everything from emergency information and local service updates to celebrating community members and initiatives. Representatives of local governments often have personal pages as well where they share information relevant to their official role.
As previously covered on Conduit Street, the highest court took up a pair of cases concerning First Amendment protections when dissenters opt to post their criticisms on an elected officials social media page, rather than the government page. Follow up Conduit Street coverage back in November signaled, from the initial deliberations, that the court believed it was an important question to settle but the circumstances are rarely straightforward. A three hour hearing culminated in even more questions about the best way to approach the issue.
Last month, in a unanimous decision, a ruling issued by the Supreme Court said public officials can block social media users, unless the official purported to be exercising existing authority to speak on behalf of the government. The opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, set a clearer standard for distinguishing when an elected person is acting in an official capacity or a personal one. However, the justices did not clarify how this new standard would apply to the facts of a particular case, leaving those decisions up to the lower courts.
