In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court clarified the circumstances under which public officials can block critical constituents from their personal social media profiles without violating constitutional protections. The unanimous decision, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was issued on Friday following appeals of two conflicting cases involving school board members in Southern California and a city manager in Port Huron, Michigan.

The justices did not provide a definitive resolution to the disputes but instead sent both cases back to lower courts to apply a new legal test. The court established that state officials cannot block constituents on their personal pages if they have "actual authority to speak on behalf of the State on a particular matter" and have "purported to exercise that authority in the relevant posts."

The ruling stemmed from concerns over public officials who merge their official and personal roles on social media platforms. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard the case involving Port Huron city manager James Freed, had previously sided with Freed, who deleted comments and blocked certain profiles on his Facebook page. The resident, Kevin Lindke, had criticized Freed's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Justice Barrett emphasized that for social media activity to constitute state action, an official must not only possess state authority but also actively exercise it. The court ruled that the alleged censorship must be connected to speech on a matter within the official's jurisdiction.

While the justices' decision did not offer a definitive victory to either side, it gave Kevin Lindke another opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of the city manager's actions. The same approach was taken in the California case where school board members Michelle O'Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane were found to have violated the First Amendment by blocking constituents on their Facebook and Twitter accounts.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard the California case, faced differing legal standards compared to the newly established test in the Michigan case. As a result, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the 9th Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion in the Michigan case.

The Biden administration took the side of the officials in both cases, arguing in favor of their rights to block constituents. The officials also received support from a bipartisan group of 17 states and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. On the other hand, the American Civil Liberties Union and a group of First Amendment clinics backed the constituents' right to free speech.

These cases echo a previous Supreme Court decision to dismiss as moot a lawsuit involving former President Trump blocking users on his Twitter account. The court's recent ruling sets a new legal standard and provides guidance on how public officials should handle their social media presence, balancing their role as public servants with constituents' right to engage in political discourse.

As the cases go back to the lower courts, further legal proceedings will determine the ultimate outcome and repercussions for public officials' use of social media platforms.