Lindke v. Freed

Background

James Freed was the city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, who ran a public Facebook page he created before 2008 and later updated to list his city title and link to the city website. He posted mostly about family and personal matters but also shared job-related updates, highlighted other city officials’ releases, and invited public feedback. Facebook user Kevin Lindke criticized the city’s pandemic response on Freed’s posts; Freed deleted some comments and eventually blocked Lindke so he could no longer comment. Lindke sued under a federal law (Section 1983), claiming Freed violated his free speech rights, but the lower courts found Freed had acted in a private capacity.

Reasoning

The Court addressed when a public official’s social-media actions count as government action. It held that such conduct is attributable to the State only if the official (1) actually had authority to speak for the government on the particular matter and (2) purported to exercise that authority in the specific social-media posts. Appearance and function of an account matter for the second step but cannot substitute for actual state authority. The Court emphasized that the authority must be rooted in written law or longstanding custom and connected to the complained-of content. Because Freed’s page was ambiguous between personal and official use, the Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back for further fact-finding under this test.

Real world impact

The decision affects public officials and people who comment on their pages: officials who mix personal and official posts may face more scrutiny, while clear labels or separate accounts make it easier to show personal speech. Blocking tools that operate page-wide can block comment access on all posts and raise liability risks. The ruling establishes a two-part test for courts to apply, but it remands the case for further factual work rather than resolving whether Freed violated the law.