Wagschal v. Skoufis, 442 F.Supp.3d 612

In August 2018 Senator James Skoufis posted on his verified, public Facebook page about Hasidic community annexation; many replies were hostile. Eli Wagschal repeatedly accused Skoufis of condoning racist/antisemitic comments.
Skoufis blocked Wagschal from interacting with the official Facebook page on or about August 5, 2018. A blocked user could still view public content but not comment.
Wagschal sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (filed March 18, 2019), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages against Skoufis in official and individual capacities.
Skoufis unblocked Wagschal before May 29, 2019; Wagschal was able to comment on the page during the litigation. Some earlier comments had been hidden but were later unhidden.
The Court considered (1) whether equitable claims were moot given voluntary cessation/unblocking, (2) whether official-capacity damages are barred by sovereign immunity, and (3) whether Skoufis is protected by qualified immunity for individual-capacity damages.
Ruling: equitable claims dismissed as moot; official-capacity damages dismissed (Eleventh Amendment); qualified immunity granted for individual-capacity damages because the relevant law was not clearly established at the time of the block.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of declaratory/injunctive relief	Wagschal contends he suffered injury and seeks relief to vindicate First Amendment rights	Skoufis unblocked Wagschal and promises not to reblock; conduct voluntarily ceased	Claims for equitable relief are moot (voluntary cessation; no reasonable expectation of recurrence; effects eradicated)
Official-capacity monetary damages	Seeks damages under § 1983 for official acts	Official-capacity claims are suits against the state and barred by Eleventh Amendment	Official-capacity damages dismissed as barred by state sovereign immunity
Whether blocking violated the First Amendment (forum/viewpoint)	Page is an official forum; blocking constituted viewpoint discrimination	Disputed; factual and legal issues about forum characterization	Court assumed plaintiff's factual allegations for qualified immunity analysis but did not impose liability because of clearly-established-law failure
Qualified immunity for individual-capacity damages	Argues precedent (and consensus) prohibited viewpoint-based blocking	Contends no controlling or clearly established authority existed on social-media blocking as of Aug 2018	Qualified immunity granted: no controlling or robust persuasive precedent clearly established the right at the time; “obvious violation” exception inapplicable

Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 302 F. Supp. 3d 541 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (analyzing public-official social media account as a forum and holding blocking can violate First Amendment)
Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2019) (affirming that an official’s publicly used social media account can be a public forum and blocking may be impermissible viewpoint discrimination)
Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017) (recognizing social media as a means for First Amendment-protected expression)
Davison v. Randall, 912 F.3d 666 (4th Cir. 2019) (similar holding that blocking on an official Facebook page can violate the First Amendment)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (establishing modern qualified immunity standard)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified immunity framework)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (district courts may decide which qualified-immunity prong to address first)
White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (qualified-immunity requires precedent that ‘placed the constitutional question beyond debate’)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity protects reasonable mistakes about unsettled law)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (narrow ‘‘obvious violation’’ exception to need for on-point precedent)