Lindke v. Freed

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Lindke v Freed. In this case, the court considered this issue: When does a public official’s social media activity constitute state action subject to the First Amendment? The case was decided on March 15, 2024. The Supreme Court held that a public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official’s social-media page engages in state action under 42 U-S-C § 1983 only if the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. Section 1983 provides a cause of action against a person “who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State” deprives someone of a federal constitutional or statutory right. Thus, to establish a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show actions attributable to a state, not those of a private person. Sometimes, state action is clear, but other times, the line between private conduct and state action is more difficult to draw. State officials retain their own First Amendment rights to speak about their jobs as private citizens. To determine whether an official was acting in an official capacity or as a private citizen on social media, courts must look at factors like whether the account was designated as personal or official, whether individual posts expressly invoked the official's state authority, and the immediate legal effect of the posts. Additional contextual factors like the official's use of government staff to make posts may also be relevant in unclear cases. Because the U-S Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit applied a different test, the Court vacated its judgment and remanded the case. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.