Davison v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, 1:16-cv-00932

Background

Davison, a Loudoun County resident interested in public-ethics issues, sued Loudoun County and individual supervisors after comments he posted on County social-media pages were deleted; he later amended to add claims against Chair Phyllis Randall for blocking him from a Facebook Page titled "Chair Phyllis J. Randall, Government Official."
Davison alleges Randall used that Facebook Page in her official capacity, that the Board’s Social Media Comments Policy governs it, and that Randall blocked him for critical comments, violating his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights.
Randall moved to dismiss the amended claims; Davison moved for partial summary judgment. No answer had been filed and no discovery had occurred when the motions were briefed.
The Court denied Davison’s summary-judgment motion because it rested on allegations rather than record evidence and there were genuine material factual disputes (e.g., who maintains the page and for what purpose).
The Court denied Randall’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion as to both First Amendment and Due Process claims, finding Davison plausibly alleged the Page was an official County social-media site subject to the County Social Media Comments Policy and that blocking him could constitute viewpoint-based suppression and a prior restraint without process.
The Court also rejected Randall’s arguments based on estoppel, official-capacity duplication, and qualified immunity at this stage, holding that the governing legal principles were sufficiently established that dismissal on qualified immunity grounds was not appropriate without a fuller record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Randall’s Facebook Page is governed by Loudoun County’s Social Media Comments Policy such that First Amendment limits apply	Davison: Page is an official, public-facing "Chair" page used for County business and thus falls under the County policy	Randall: Page is personal; County policy does not apply; Facebook’s control/terms distinguish it from a government forum	Court: On the pleadings and image in the complaint, Davison plausibly alleged the Page is a County social-media site and the policy could create a limited public forum; claim survives dismissal
Whether blocking Davison from the Page states a First Amendment claim	Davison: Blocking was viewpoint-based suppression in a limited public forum created by County policy	Randall: No First Amendment violation because the page is personal and Facebook’s control complicates government-forum analysis	Court: Allegations suffice to state a First Amendment claim; online medium does not alter First Amendment analysis; social-media policy can create a forum
Whether blocking without process states a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim	Davison: Blocking was a prior restraint/deprivation without County-provided process	Randall: Any deprivation was de minimis; post-deprivation complaints to officials suffice	Court: Davison adequately pleaded a due-process deprivation and lack of County-provided process; dismissal inappropriate
Whether Randall is entitled to qualified immunity for individual-capacity claims	Davison: (implicit) constitutional protections were clearly established	Randall: Law unclear given Facebook’s ownership/control and novel technology	Court: Existing First Amendment and forum-law principles (applied to online speech) put a reasonable official on notice; qualified immunity inappropriate to resolve on these pleadings/record

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment genuine issue standard)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary-judgment movant’s burden)
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., 637 F.3d 435 (Rule 12(b)(6) pleading/ inference standard)
Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (government may create a limited public forum by policy)
Bland v. Roberts, 730 F.3d 368 (Facebook/social-media speech protected by First Amendment)
Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (online speech entitled to First Amendment protection)
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (due process principles concerning deprivation of rights)
Ridpath v. Bd. of Governors Marshall Univ., 447 F.3d 292 (qualified-immunity two-step)
Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (official-capacity suit is a suit against the office)
Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (determining governmental intent to create a public forum)