Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187

James Freed, city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, operated a Facebook page where he posted both personal and job-related content.
Kevin Lindke, a Facebook user, commented critically on Freed's posts about the city’s COVID-19 response; Freed deleted Lindke's comments and eventually blocked him.
Lindke sued Freed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of his First Amendment rights by censoring speech on what Lindke argued was a public forum.
The district court granted summary judgment for Freed, finding he acted in his private capacity; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, focusing on the page’s personal aspects.
Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve when a public official’s social-media conduct constitutes state action under § 1983.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Freed’s actions were state action	Freed’s page was a public forum, blocking was government censorship	Page was personal, actions were private, not under color of state law	State action only if (1) actual authority to speak for State exists and (2) official purports to use that authority in the relevant posts
The standard for state action on social media	Official appearance/content makes actions attributable to the State	Statute, custom, or usage must authorize such activity	Actual authority required; appearance/function relevant only after authority is established
Application to mixed-use/multi-purpose accounts	Any official business on a page makes entire page/acts state action	Mixed posts do not convert all actions into state action	Posts must specifically purport to exercise state authority; fact-intensive post-by-post analysis
Implications for First Amendment rights	Public should retain right to comment on official matters	Officials have personal free-speech/editorial rights on personal pages	Officials do not lose personal rights; only official use of authority triggers state action

United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321 (distinguishing syllabus from the Court's opinion)
Griffin v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 130 (state action turns on the source of power, not employment status)
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (state action requires conduct fairly attributable to the State)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (state action is the exercise of power possessed by virtue of state law)
Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (no state action without dependence on state authority)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (public employees have free-speech rights as citizens on public concerns)
Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (government employees retain First Amendment rights when not speaking pursuant to their official duties)
Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist., 597 U.S. 507 (scope of official duties should not be defined by broad job descriptions)
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 587 U.S. 802 (First Amendment restricts only governmental, not private, speech abridgement)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (local governments’ actions count as state action for §1983)