The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Lindke v. Freed, a First Amendments rights case bought at the District Court and Sixth Circuit by attorney Philip L. Ellison of Outside Legal Counsel PLC. Lead counsel at the Supreme Court is Allon Kedem of Arnold & Porter. The petition asked the Court to resolve when a public official's social media activity constitute state actions.
Background
In 2014, James Freed became the City Manager of Port Huron, Michigan. Like many public officials, he maintained a Facebook page where he shared both personal updates and information related to his public office. Over time, the page drew comments from local residents, including those critical of the city’s policies.
One such resident was Kevin Lindke, who regularly commented on Freed’s posts regarding public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lindke’s comments—some critical of the City’s approach—were deleted by Freed, and Lindke was ultimately blocked from the page altogether. Believing that his First Amendment rights had been violated, Lindke filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
The central issue was whether Freed’s actions in managing his Facebook account constituted “state action.” If Freed was acting in his official capacity, then constitutional limits applied and blocking Lindke would be unlawful viewpoint discrimination. If, however, Freed was using his page in a personal capacity, then the First Amendment would not restrict his ability to moderate comments.
The federal trial court dismissed Lindke’s claims, and in 2021 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that Freed’s management of his Facebook page was not attributable to the state. The appellate decision deepened a split among the federal circuits over when a public official’s social media use counts as government action.
Recognizing the importance of the question in the digital age, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review. In March 2024, the Court unanimously vacated the Sixth Circuit’s ruling and clarified the proper test: blocking or deleting comments on social media constitutes state action if (1) the official had actual authority to speak for the government on the subject matter, and (2) the official purported to exercise that authority in the communication at issue. The case was sent back for further proceedings under this new standard.What Was at Stake
At its core, Lindke v. Freed raises one serious and pressing constitutional question of the digital era: when do public officials’ actions on social media become government actions subject to the First Amendment?
Elected leaders and government officials now rely heavily on Facebook, X (Twitter), Instagram, and other platforms to share information, announce policies, and interact with citizens. These accounts often blur the lines between personal expression and official communication. If a public official may freely delete critical comments or block certain residents, entire segments of the public may be excluded from the modern “public square.”
On the other hand, forcing officials to treat all aspects of their personal accounts as public forums could chill their own speech, discourage civic engagement, or blur the boundary between private life and public duty.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion set out a new two-part test:
- Actual Authority: Did the official have real authority to speak on behalf of the government on the topic?
- Purported Exercise: Was the official actually exercising that authority in the social media post or action?
The outcome of Lindke matters not just for Port Huron or Michigan, but for every community nationwide. It determines whether citizens can be silenced by a single click of the “block” button, or whether constitutional safeguards extend to the digital spaces where modern civic life now unfolds.
For local governments, school boards, sheriffs, and other officials, the case provides long-needed clarity—but also imposes clear constitutional boundaries. For citizens, it reaffirms that the right to criticize government does not vanish when the forum shifts from a town hall to a social media platform.
