Ruling by
Per Curiam (USSC)Lower Court
9th U.S. Circuit Court of AppealsRemand was required to determine whether government officials were empowered to, and purported to be engaged in, official action when they blocked individuals from commenting on their social media posts.
Court
USSCCite as
2024 DJDAR 2377Published
Mar. 18, 2024Filing Date
Mar. 15, 2024Opinion Type
OpinionDisposition Type
Vacated and RemandedSummary
In 2014, Michelle O'Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane created public Facebook pages to promote their campaigns for the Poway Unified School District Board of Trustees. After they won the election, O'Connor-Ratcliff and Zane continued to use their public pages to post PUSD-related content and solicit feedback from constituents. Christopher and Kimberly Garnier, whose children attended PUSD schools, repeatedly posted comments critical of the board on the Facebook pages. The trustees initially deleted the comments, but they eventually blocked the Garniers entirely. The Garniers sued O'Connor-Ratliff and Zane under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that the blocking violated their First Amendment rights. Although the district court found the trustees were immune from damages, it allowed an injunctive relief claim to proceed on the merits. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding there was a close nexus between the trustees' use of their Facebook pages and their official positions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split.
Vacated and remanded. In Lindke v. Freed (published concurrently with this opinion), the Supreme Court articulated that the appropriate test for identifying state action in the context of public officials acting on social media is whether the official (1) possessed actual authority to speak on behalf of the state; and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking on social media. Here, the Ninth Circuit examined whether there was state action by examining the appearance and content of the relevant Facebook pages. Since the Ninth Circuit used a different approach than that specified in Lindke, remand was necessary.
— Joshua Ogle
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 22-324
MICHELLE O'CONNOR-RATCLIFF, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v.
CHRISTOPHER GARNIER, ET UX.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[March 15, 2024]
PER CURIAM.
In 2014, Michelle O'Connor-Ratcliff and T. J. Zane created public Facebook pages to promote their campaigns for election to the Poway Unified School District (PUSD) Board of Trustees. While O'Connor-Ratcliff and Zane (whom we will call the Trustees) both had personal Facebook pages that they shared with friends and family, they used their public pages for campaigning and issues related to PUSD. After they won election, the Trustees continued to use their public pages to post PUSD-related content, including board-meeting recaps, application solicitations for board positions, local budget plans and surveys, and public safety updates. They also used their pages to solicit feedback and communicate with constituents. Their Facebook pages described them as "Government Official[s]" and noted their official positions. O'Connor-Ratcliff also created a public Twitter page, which she used in much the same way.
Christopher and Kimberly Garnier, who have children attending PUSD schools, often criticized the board of trustees. They began posting lengthy and repetitive comments on the Trustees' social-media posts---for instance, nearly identical comments on 42 separate posts on O'Connor-Ratcliff 's Fa- cebook page and 226 identical replies within a 10-minute span to every tweet on her Twitter feed. The Trustees initially deleted the Garniers' comments before blocking them from commenting altogether.
The Garniers sued the Trustees under 42 U. S. C. §1983, seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief for the alleged violation of their First Amendment rights. At summary judgment, the District Court granted the Trustees qualified immunity as to the damages claims but allowed the case to proceed on the merits on the ground that the Trustees acted "under color of " state law when they blocked the Garniers. §1983.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. It held that §1983's stateaction requirement was satisfied because there was a "close nexus between the Trustees' use of their social media pages and their official positions." 41 F. 4th 1158, 1170 (2022). The court cited its own state-action precedent, which holds that an off-duty state employee acts under color of law if she (1) "purports to or pretends to act under color of law"; (2) her "pretense of acting in the performance of [her] duties had the purpose and effect of influencing the behavior of others"; and (3) the "harm inflicted on plaintiff related in some meaningful way either to the officer's governmental status or to the performance of [her] duties." Ibid. (citing Naffe v. Frey, 789 F. 3d 1030, 1037 (CA9 2015); internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Applying that framework, the court found state action based largely on the official "appearance and content" of the Trustees' pages. 41 F. 4th, at 1171.
We granted certiorari in this case and in Lindke v. Freed, ___ U. S. ___ (2024), to resolve a Circuit split about how to identify state action in the context of public officials using social media. 598 U. S. ___ (2023). Because the approach that the Ninth Circuit applied is different from the one we have elaborated in Lindke, we vacate the judgment below and remand the case to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in that case.
It is so ordered.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424