Supreme Court Examines First Amendment Rights on Officials' Personal Social Media Accounts

Justices grapple with defining "state action" in determining whether personal social media accounts of public officials are considered public forums, following disparate rulings in two cases involving blocked constituents.

The US Supreme Court is examining the First Amendment rights of public officials pertaining to their personal social media accounts after disparate rulings in two cases. The court is tasked with defining 'state action' to determine whether these accounts are considered public forums.
The court indicated the difficulties of creating a legal test to separate state and private actions online, especially as many politicians and government officials use the same accounts for both personal and professional purposes.
One case revolves around two members of a Californian school board who blocked constituents from their personal Facebook and Twitter pages, and another involves a city manager in Michigan who blocked a critic from his social media account.
Several justices argued that a rule focused on whether government owns or controls the property to which access is denied does not sit well in the digital world. They argued personal Facebook or Twitter pages are not physical properties, hence do not fit traditional notions of property.
Other justices highlighted the complexities of determining the scope of an official's unwritten, customary duties in relation to the First Amendment. The resolution of these cases will have implications for how officials use social media and how their constituents interact with them.
The Supreme Court's decisions on these cases will likely impact how government and social media interact in the future, with several similar cases to be heard in the coming year. These cases focus on the power of social media giants to regulate content on their platforms.