Illinois Federal Court Applies Lindke Test in Social Media Lawsuit
Thanks to one of our blog readers for sending today's case which involves the application of the "actual authority" test that was adopted in 2024 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lindke v. Freed case that applies to challenges to a public officials' or employees' actions on social media.
In 2015, a candidate for the office of Illinois state representative created a Facebook page. She won her election, and in 2024, created a separate "house minority leader" Facebook page where she engaged with citizens. She also continued to post on her original Facebook page and interact with citizens about state business. After someone posted critical comments on her original Facebook page, she deleted the negative comments and blocked the individual from her page. The individual then sued the state representative, claiming that the official's actions violated her First Amendment and civil rights.
This week, an Illinois district court judge dismissed the case on several bases, including that the complaint did not satisfy the two-part "actual authority" test that was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court last year in Lindke v. Freed. We reported on the Lindke case previously. In order for a government official's or employee's activities on social media (e.g., deleting comments or banning or blocking persons from commenting on their social media pages) to be considered "state action" for purposes of a First Amendment civil rights lawsuit, the person suing must show that the government official or employee (1) had actual authority to speak on behalf of the government on a particular matter and (2) purported to exercise that authority in the action being challenged.
Here, the court found that the complaint did not contain sufficient allegations that the state representative had "actual authority" in this matter. Specifically, the court said that the complaint did not refer to any law, policy, or regulation that vested the state representative with authority to speak on the state's behalf. The court acknowledged that the minority leader may have some authority to speak on the state's behalf, but the plaintiff had not identified any express authority, and that simply discussing state business on social media is not sufficient to meet the first prong of the Lindke test. The court also noted that the complaint failed to meet the second prong of the Lindke case since the plaintiff did not point to any specific Facebook posts where the state representative exercised actual authority to speak on the state's behalf.
In sum, the court dismissed the complaint, although has allowed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint if he can cure the deficiencies noted in the court's ruling. We will keep an eye on this case and report back if there are new developments. This case is worth a read for government officials and employees seeking guidance on how a court might apply the new Supreme Court two-part "actual authority" test for social media activities.
0 comments:
Post a Comment