In a complex and highly anticipated session, the U.S. Supreme Court convened on Tuesday to tackle the thorny issue of public officials blocking critics from their personal social media pages. The cases at hand involved two local school board members from Poway, California, who had blocked persistently critical parents from accessing their social media accounts. The parents argued that their First Amendment right to free speech had been violated.

Representing the school board members, lawyer Hashim Mooppan contended that these social media pages were extensions of the officials' campaign pages and thus should be considered purely personal. However, Justice Samuel Alito raised concerns about the potential confusion that could arise, stating that if a Facebook page appeared official to the majority of people, it should not be dismissed as personal.

Justice Elena Kagan further questioned the distinction, drawing attention to former President Donald Trump's practice of blocking critics on his Twitter account. Mooppan acknowledged the complexity of the issue, recognizing that a government staffer facilitated Trump's account. Kagan emphasized that access to the president's social media was vital for citizens to understand the workings of the government.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor probed Mooppan on the potential consequences, asking if a school board member could exclude certain groups based on religious or ethnic backgrounds since their social media accounts were considered personal. Mooppan responded by clarifying that these were campaign pages utilized by elected officials to communicate with constituents during election cycles.

The justices also questioned whether the school board members' social media pages, even if considered personal, were nonetheless being used to discuss official school business. Mooppan contended that discussions about school matters could theoretically occur in various settings, such as a backyard or a campaign event exclusive to party members.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed her concerns over officials defining their own authority. She suggested that even her law clerk could claim to post official business from her chambers. Mooppan cryptically replied that the higher up the chain of authority, the harder it becomes to identify a superior who can dictate actions.

Arguing against the school board members, lawyer Pamela Karlan contended that blocking critics from social media pages denied them access to crucial information about the public school system. Justice Alito drew a comparison between a public official deflecting a critic at a grocery store and blocking them on social media. Karlan distinguished the two scenarios, stating that when an official is not on duty, they are not exercising their authority.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised the example of the White House press secretary inviting a select group of reporters to her house for dinner, excluding others. Karlan argued that uninvited reporters would not have a constitutional claim to attend the dinner or press briefings. However, she maintained that public officials discussing public business on social media cannot restrict constituents without violating their First Amendment rights.

The Justices recognized the complexity and significance of the case, with Justice Kagan acknowledging that First Amendment interests were widely at play. The Court's ruling in these cases could have far-reaching implications for the intersection of social media, public officials, and free speech rights.