On March 15, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, which impacts a school board member’s ability to control their social media pages. 

The Court clarified that only when school board members are acting as state actors and within their official duties, are they limited in their ability to block unwelcome content on their social media pages. The Garnier ruling, along with the companion case Lindke v. Freed,  provides guidance on how to determine whether a school board member is engaged in state action or is functioning as a private citizen online. Specifically, a public official’s social-media activity constitutes state action only if the official:

1. possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf; and 
2. purported to exercise that authority when they spoke on social media. 

If state action is found, the official’s social media page will be considered a public forum meaning speech and social media comments cannot be regulated or restricted by a school board member.

Based on the above test, a school board member may have a private social media page where they may freely block and delete unwelcome comments and content as they are not acting within their official capacity. A public official, including district employees and board members, who are acting in their private capacity, may discuss topics related to their school board position and still maintain their private status.

You can read the full alert to learn more at: