Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Lindke v. Freed

Supreme Court of the United States · 2024 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentState ActionSection 1983Social Mediastate actionunder color of law42 U.S.C. § 1983

Facts

James Freed created a Facebook account before becoming city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, later converted it to a public page, and updated it after his appointment to identify himself as city manager and include city contact information. He continued to post primarily about his personal life, but he also posted about city matters, highlighted communications from other city officials, solicited public feedback, and sometimes answered residents' questions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Freed made both personal and job-related posts. Kevin Lindke criticized the city's pandemic response in comments on Freed's page, and Freed first deleted those comments and later blocked Lindke from commenting at all.

Issue

When does a public official's management of a social-media page, including deleting comments or blocking a user, constitute state action for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First Amendment? More specifically, did Freed's actions on his Facebook page amount to conduct attributable to the State rather than private conduct?

Rule

A public official's social-media activity constitutes state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only if the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State's behalf on the particular matter at issue, and (2) purported to exercise that authority in the relevant social-media posts. Appearance and function may bear on whether the official purported to exercise state authority, but they cannot substitute for actual state authority rooted in statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Patel is the elected treasurer of a township outside Columbus, Ohio. On her public social-media page, she posts weekly updates about road closures and deletes comments criticizing those closures, but no statute, ordinance, regulation, or longstanding custom gives the treasurer authority to make transportation announcements for the township.

If the critics sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, what is the strongest argument that Patel's deletions were not state action?

Explanation. State action requires more than an official's status or an account's public appearance. The plaintiff must show the official had actual authority, rooted in statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, to speak on the State's behalf on the particular matter. If Patel had no such authority over road-closure announcements, her deletions are not fairly attributable to the State. (Derived from Lindke v. Freed (n.d.).)