The question
Whether a public official who blocks someone from commenting on the official's social-media page engages in state action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
Lindke v. Freed
What the Court decided
The Court set a two-part test for when a public official's social-media activity counts as state action. A public official who blocks or deletes a person's comments acts under color of state law only if the official both had actual authority to speak for the State on the matter and purported to exercise that authority in the relevant posts. The Court reasoned that Section 1983 reaches acts attributable to a State, not the private conduct of a person who also holds public office, and that officials retain their own First Amendment rights on personal platforms.
How the justices split
UnanimousThe Court's opinion
Barrett, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Jackson
A public official blocking or deleting comments on a social-media page engages in state action under Section 1983 only when the official both had actual authority to speak for the State on the particular matter and purported to exercise that authority in the relevant posts. Section 1983's under-color-of-law text targets acts attributable to a State, not those of a private person. A state employee's status is not determinative, and the line between private conduct and state action turns on substance rather than labels, because officials retain their own First Amendment rights on personal platforms.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court adopted a two-part test requiring both actual authority to speak for the State and a purported exercise of that authority in the relevant posts.
Source: syllabus, Held
Section 1983's under-color-of-law text is designed as a protection against acts attributable to a State, not those of a private person.
Source: syllabus, Held
A public official's status as a state employee is not determinative of whether conduct is state action.
Source: syllabus, Held
State officials retain their own First Amendment rights, including editorial control over speech on their personal platforms.
Source: syllabus, Held
Justice Barrett delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, with no separate concurrences or dissents.
Source: syllabus, lineup