Lindke v. Freed, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 1214 (2024) (A public official who blocks someone from commenting on the official’s social-media page engages in state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only if the official both 1) possessed...more
Social media has given public officials the ability to share information quickly and easily with their constituents and followers, even on their own personal Facebook and other social media accounts. When using a personal...more
In my prior article, I discussed Lindke v. Freed, in which a social media user brought action under § 1983 against a city manager, alleging that the manager violated the user’s First Amendment rights by deleting his comments...more
In its recent opinion in Lindke v. Freed, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed when public officials may be held liable for violating the First Amendment for silencing critics on social media. The Court held that a public...more
On March 15, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Lindke v. Freed, No. 22-611, holding that a public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official’s social media page engages in state action under 42 U.S.C. §...more
Everyone on social media at some point has to figure out how they’re going to use it. Will their account be public? Will they post information about family? Current events? Religion? Politics? If the account’s not open to...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has established guidelines for determining when a public official’s use of a private social media platform such as Facebook, X or Nextdoor constitutes public speech that cannot be censored. State and...more
On March 15, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Lindke v. Freed and a per curiam opinion in O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier addressing when a public official may prevent a person from commenting on the public...more
In Lindke v. Reed, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued an opinion holding that social media activity can constitute state action for purposes of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court held that “[f]or...more
In April 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to a pair of cases dealing with the intersection of free speech, social media, and governmental liability. Both cases deal with § 1983 actions against governmental...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in two cases: Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, Nos. 22-611, 22-324: Both cases involve whether and to what extent public officials’ activity...more
As MuniBlog readers may be aware, public access television airs programs ranging from school district and municipal government meetings to publicly hosted programs. Sometimes a program may offend viewers or be critical of...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued four decisions this morning: Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-1702: A private nonprofit corporation known as MNN operates the public access channels on Time...more
On June 17, 2019, the United States Supreme Court decided Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-1702, holding that a private nonprofit corporation that operates the public-access channels on the cable system in...more
Judge Merrick Garland, if he is confirmed, may become one of the Supreme Court’s foremost authorities in antitrust law. He taught antitrust law at Harvard, and he has published on the subject, so it’s fair to expect him to...more
Let me stipulate that trying to evaluate a Supreme Court nominee based on a 30-year old law review article is a bad idea. That said, some of the issues that Obama nominee Merrick Garland wrote about in the mid-1980s are...more
Earlier this year, we covered the Supreme Court’s decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, which held that a state regulatory board composed of “active market participants” was not immune to federal...more
As the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014-15 term draws to a conclusion, the Court has resolved — or will resolve in a matter of days — several cases with potentially wide-reaching implications for a range of important policy and...more
U.S. Supreme Court Holds That State Action Immunity Does Not Apply to State Boards If the Board Is Controlled by Active Market Participants - On Feb. 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that a state...more
In a closely followed decision with significant consequences for state licensing boards and their members, the Supreme Court in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, 135 S. Ct. 1101...more
On February 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, holding that a regulatory board made up of market participants is exempt from...more
On February 25, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 1502 (2015). In the 6–3 opinion, the Court held that an action taken by...more
Federal and state courts are expected to rule on several nationally watched antitrust health care cases during the first half of 2015. As we enter into the first week of the New Year, Nexsen Pruet associate Rachel...more
After nearly two decades of silence on the state action doctrine, on October 14, 2014, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Court’s second case on the subject in two years: The North Carolina Board of...more
On October 14, 2014, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case that could have significant implications for hybrid public/private “regulatory” bodies. Many such bodies, like state and local wine...more