Already a subscriber? Make sure to log into your account before viewing this content. You can access your account by hitting the “login” button on the top right corner. Still unable to see the content after signing in? Make sure your card on file is up-to-date.

The US Supreme Court has decided to reassess previous judicial decisions on whether public officials can block critics on social media without breaching the constitutional right to free speech. This development sends the cases back to the lower courts for further review, following lawsuits in California and Michigan where local officials blocked individuals after criticizing them on social media.

The cases under review involved distinct scenarios. In California, Poway Unified School District trustees Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane faced a lawsuit from parents Christopher and Kimberly Garnier, who were blocked on social media after posting critical comments. A federal judge and the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Garniers, emphasizing that the trustees’ social media accounts acted as public communication channels.

Meanwhile, in Michigan, Kevin Lindke sued Port Huron City Manager James Freed for being blocked on Facebook, alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights. However, this time, the courts ruled in favor of Freed, concluding that the blocking did not represent an official act.

At the heart of these cases is the issue of whether blocking individuals constitutes an action within a governmental capacity, as the First Amendment’s free speech protections generally apply to actions taken by government officials, not private citizens. “When state actors enter that virtual world and invoke their government status to create a forum for such expression,” the 9th Circuit wrote, “the First Amendment enters with them.”