{"id":317717,"date":"2024-03-19T11:00:05","date_gmt":"2024-03-19T05:30:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=317717"},"modified":"2024-03-19T10:54:12","modified_gmt":"2024-03-19T05:24:12","slug":"public-official-blocking-social-media-facebook-comments-covid19-scotus-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/19\/public-official-blocking-social-media-facebook-comments-covid19-scotus-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Does blocking comments on social-media page by Public Official constitute State Action? SCOTUS deliberates"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS):<\/span> While considering the instant case wherein a public official blocked a private individual on Facebook for expressing his displeasure at the city’s approach to Covid-19 pandemic; the Bench of John Roberts, CJ., Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett*<\/span> and Ketanji Brown Jackson, JJ., unanimously opined that a public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official’s social-media page engages in state action under 42 U. S. C §19831<\/sup><\/a> only if the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts.<\/p>\n

It was further stated that because Facebook’s blocking tool operates on a page-wide basis, a court would have to consider whether the City Manager had engaged in state action with respect to any post on which Lindke wished to comment<\/span>. The Court vacated the matter and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the instant opinion.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/span> The respondent created a private Facebook profile in 2008 and eventually converted his private profile into a public page i.e., anyone could see and comment in his posts. In 2014 when he became a City Manager, Chief Administrative Officer for the City of Port Huron, MI, he continued to operate his own Facebook page, posting information related to his job, personal life and often solicitated feedback from the public on issues of concern for the city.<\/p>\n

The respondent often responded to comments on his posts, including those left by city residents with inquiries about community matters. He occasionally deleted comments that he considered “derogatory” or “stupid.”<\/p>\n

After COVID—19 pandemic began, the respondent posted about it as well. Some posts were personal, and some contained information related to his job. The appellant Facebook user commented on some of respondent’s posts, unequivocally expressing his displeasure with the city’s approach to the pandemic. Initially, the respondent deleted the comments; ultimately, he blocked the appellant from commenting at all.<\/p>\n

Thus, the appellant sued the respondent under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging that his First Amendment rights have been violated. It was contended that the appellant had the right to comment on the respondent’s Facebook page because it was a public forum. The District Court determined that since respondent managed his Facebook page in his private capacity, and because only state action can give rise to liability under 42 U. S. C §1983, the appellant’s claim cannot succeed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court.<\/p>\n

Court’s Assessment:<\/span> Perusing the facts of the case, the Court pointed out that the instant case requires analysing whether a state official<\/span> engaged in state action or functioned as a private citizen.<\/p>\n

It was noted that Section 1983 provides a cause of action against every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State<\/span> deprives someone of a federal constitutional or statutory right. Section 1983’s “under color of<\/span>” text makes clear that it is a provision designed as a protection against acts attributable to a State, not those of a private person.<\/p>\n

The Court further noted that the respondent’s status as a state employee is not determinative. The distinction between private conduct and state action turns on substance, not labels: Private parties can act with the authority of the State, and state officials have private lives and their own constitutional rights.<\/p>\n

However, the Court pointed out that in the case of a public official using social media, a close look is definitely necessary to categorize conduct. It was noted that a public official’s social-media activity constitute state action under §1983 only if the official (1)<\/span> possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf, and (2)<\/span> purported to exercise that authority when he spoke on social media. The appearance and function of the social-media activity are relevant at the second step, but they cannot make up for a lack of state authority at the first.<\/p>\n

Focussing on prong<\/span> (1)<\/span> vis-à-vis the instant case, the Court noted that unless the respondent was “possessed of state authority” to post city updates and register citizen concerns his conduct is not attributable to the State. Importantly, the appellant must show more than that the City Manager had some<\/span> authority to communicate with residents on behalf of Port Huron<\/span>. The alleged censorship must be connected to speech on a matter within respondent’s bailiwick. There must be a tie between the official’s authority and the gravamen of the plaintiff’s complaint. “Determining the scope of an official’s power requires careful attention to the relevant source of that power and what authority it reasonably encompasses. The threshold inquiry to establish state action is not whether making official announcements could fit within a job description but whether making such announcements is actually part of the job that the State entrusted the official to do<\/span>”.<\/p>\n

Vis-à-vis prong (2)<\/span> the Court pointed out that for social-media activity to constitute state action, an official must not only have state authority, he must also purport to use it. If the official does not speak in furtherance of his official responsibilities, he speaks with his own voice. In the instant case, if the respondent’s Facebook account had carried a label like<\/span> “this is the personal page<\/span>” he would be entitled to a heavy presumption that all of his posts were personal. However, the respondent’s page was not designated either “personal” or “official.”<\/p>\n

The ambiguity surrounding respondent’s page requires a fact-specific undertaking in which posts’ content and function are the most important considerations.<\/span> A post that expressly invokes state authority to make an announcement not available elsewhere is official, while a post that merely repeats or shares otherwise available information is more likely personal. “Lest any official lose the right to speak about public affairs in his personal capacity, the appellant (plaintiff) must show that the official purports to exercise state authority in specific posts<\/span>”.<\/p>\n

[Lindke v. Freed, No. 22-611, decided on 15-03-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment of the Court delivered by Justice Amy Coney Barrett<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

1.<\/a> 42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights | U.S. Code | US Law | LII \/ Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the instant case, the City Manager of Port Huron, Michigan, blocked a Facebook user for expressing his displeasure at the city’s approach to Covid-19 pandemic.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":317720,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[51523,66532,41412,3871,30014,23384,66533],"class_list":["post-317717","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-blocking","tag-city-manager","tag-covid19","tag-facebook","tag-scotus","tag-social-media","tag-state-action"],"yoast_head":"\nDoes blocking comments on social-media page by Public Official constitute State Action? SCOTUS deliberates<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In the instant case, the City Manager of Port Huron blocked a Facebook user for expressing his displeasure at the city\u2019s approach to the Covid-19 pandemic.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/19\/public-official-blocking-social-media-facebook-comments-covid19-scotus-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Does blocking comments on social-media page by Public Official constitute State Action? SCOTUS deliberates\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In the instant case, the City Manager of Port Huron blocked a Facebook user for expressing his displeasure at the city\u2019s approach to the Covid-19 pandemic.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/19\/public-official-blocking-social-media-facebook-comments-covid19-scotus-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-03-19T05:30:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/State-Action-facebook-comments-blocking-SCOTUS.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Does blocking comments on social-media page by Public Official constitute State Action? SCOTUS deliberates\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/19\/public-official-blocking-social-media-facebook-comments-covid19-scotus-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/19\/public-official-blocking-social-media-facebook-comments-covid19-scotus-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Does blocking comments on social-media page by Public Official constitute State Action? SCOTUS deliberates\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/19\/public-official-blocking-social-media-facebook-comments-covid19-scotus-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/19\/public-official-blocking-social-media-facebook-comments-covid19-scotus-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/State-Action-facebook-comments-blocking-SCOTUS.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-03-19T05:30:05+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"description\":\"In the instant case, the City Manager of Port Huron blocked a Facebook user for expressing his displeasure at the city\u2019s approach to the Covid-19 pandemic.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/19\/public-official-blocking-social-media-facebook-comments-covid19-scotus-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/19\/public-official-blocking-social-media-facebook-comments-covid19-scotus-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/19\/public-official-blocking-social-media-facebook-comments-covid19-scotus-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/State-Action-facebook-comments-blocking-SCOTUS.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/State-Action-facebook-comments-blocking-SCOTUS.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"State Action facebook comments blocking SCOTUS\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/19\/public-official-blocking-social-media-facebook-comments-covid19-scotus-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Does blocking comments on social-media page by Public Official constitute State Action? SCOTUS deliberates\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Does blocking comments on social-media page by Public Official constitute State Action? SCOTUS deliberates","description":"In the instant case, the City Manager of Port Huron blocked a Facebook user for expressing his displeasure at the city\u2019s approach to the Covid-19 pandemic.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/19\/public-official-blocking-social-media-facebook-comments-covid19-scotus-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Does blocking comments on social-media page by Public Official constitute State Action? SCOTUS deliberates","og_description":"In the instant case, the City Manager of Port Huron blocked a Facebook user for expressing his displeasure at the city\u2019s approach to the Covid-19 pandemic.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/19\/public-official-blocking-social-media-facebook-comments-covid19-scotus-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-03-19T05:30:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/State-Action-facebook-comments-blocking-SCOTUS.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Does blocking comments on social-media page by Public Official constitute State Action? SCOTUS deliberates","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/19\/public-official-blocking-social-media-facebook-comments-covid19-scotus-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/19\/public-official-blocking-social-media-facebook-comments-covid19-scotus-legal-news\/","name":"Does blocking comments on social-media page by Public Official constitute State Action? SCOTUS deliberates","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/19\/public-official-blocking-social-media-facebook-comments-covid19-scotus-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/19\/public-official-blocking-social-media-facebook-comments-covid19-scotus-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/State-Action-facebook-comments-blocking-SCOTUS.webp","datePublished":"2024-03-19T05:30:05+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"description":"In the instant case, the City Manager of Port Huron blocked a Facebook user for expressing his displeasure at the city\u2019s approach to the Covid-19 pandemic.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/19\/public-official-blocking-social-media-facebook-comments-covid19-scotus-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/19\/public-official-blocking-social-media-facebook-comments-covid19-scotus-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/19\/public-official-blocking-social-media-facebook-comments-covid19-scotus-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/State-Action-facebook-comments-blocking-SCOTUS.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/State-Action-facebook-comments-blocking-SCOTUS.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"State Action facebook comments blocking SCOTUS"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/19\/public-official-blocking-social-media-facebook-comments-covid19-scotus-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Does blocking comments on social-media page by Public Official constitute State Action? SCOTUS deliberates"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/State-Action-facebook-comments-blocking-SCOTUS.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":325383,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/30\/content-moderation-social-media-misleading-news-locus-standi-scotus-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":317717,"position":0},"title":"Read why SCOTUS dismissed challenge to Federal communications pertaining to content moderation by social media platforms to suppress misleading information","author":"Sucheta","date":"June 30, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court found that the respondents could not establish locus standi to seek any injunction against the impugned communications vis-a-vis content moderation by social media to suppress misleading information especially related to Covid-19 and 2020 Presidential Elections.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"social media content moderation scotus","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/social-media-content-moderation-scotus.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/social-media-content-moderation-scotus.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/social-media-content-moderation-scotus.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/social-media-content-moderation-scotus.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":240396,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/09\/scotus-issues-one-sentence-refusal-to-republicans-seeking-to-overturn-joe-bidens-victory-in-the-state-of-pennsylvania\/","url_meta":{"origin":317717,"position":1},"title":"SCOTUS issues \u201cone-sentence\u201d refusal to Republicans seeking to overturn Joe Biden\u2019s victory in the state of Pennsylvania","author":"Editor","date":"December 9, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS): In a major setback to the Republican Party\u2019s attempts to invalidate the results of recent Presidential Elections, Full Bench of the SCOTUS in a \u201cone sentence\u201d Order, refused a request from Pennsylvania Republicans to overturn Joseph R. Biden Jr.\u2019s victory in the state\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":292870,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/23\/scotus-can-twitter-liable-aiding-abetting-isis-terror-attacks-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":317717,"position":2},"title":"Can Twitter or other social media sites, be held liable for any content posted by ISIS on its platform? SCOTUS answers","author":"Sucheta","date":"May 23, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"SCOTUS unanimously held that the plaintiffs failed to allege that the social media sites had intentionally provided any substantial aid or systemically assisted ISIS, which directly led to the Reina Nightclub terror attack.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"supreme court of the united states","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-of-the-united-states.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-of-the-united-states.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-of-the-united-states.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-of-the-united-states.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":236853,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/07\/scotus-obergefell-v-hodges-ruling-credited-with-the-creation-of-right-to-same-sex-marriage-in-usa-heavily-criticized-for-its-ruinous-consequence-for-religious-liberty\/","url_meta":{"origin":317717,"position":3},"title":"SCOTUS | Obergefell v. Hodges Ruling credited with the creation of \u2018Right to Same-Sex Marriage\u2019 in USA, heavily criticized for its \u201cruinous consequence for religious liberty\u201d","author":"Editor","date":"October 7, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS): While denying the issuance of the writ of certiorari as prayed by Kim Davis, a former county clerk in the Commonwealth of Kentucky in relation to the lawsuits accusing her of violating the constitutional rights of same sex couples, the Court went on\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":295953,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/04\/scotus-colorado-anti-discrimination-laws-cannot-compel-creating-designs-contrary-personal-beliefs-marriage\/","url_meta":{"origin":317717,"position":4},"title":"Colorado’s anti-discrimination law cannot compel a wedding website designer to create expressive designs contrary to her personal beliefs on marriage: SCOTUS","author":"Sucheta","date":"July 4, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court with a ratio of 6:3 protected the First Amendment right of the petitioner who believes in heterosexual marriages only.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"supreme court of the united states","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-of-the-united-states.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-of-the-united-states.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-of-the-united-states.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-of-the-united-states.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":270937,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/01\/scotus-maine-department-of-educations-non-sectarian-requirement-for-tuition-assistance-payments-is-violative-of-us-constitutions-first-amendment\/","url_meta":{"origin":317717,"position":5},"title":"SCOTUS| Maine Department of Education\u2019s \u2018non-sectarian requirement\u2019 for tuition assistance payments, is violative of US Constitution\u2019s First Amendment","author":"Editor","date":"August 1, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS): While deciding the instant petition wherein the Maine Department of Education (hereinafter the Department) was sued for instituting a requisite for schools to be \u201cnonsectarian\u201d in order to be eligible for tuition assistance; the SCOTUS, with a ratio of 6: 3 held that\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/317717","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=317717"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/317717\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/317720"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=317717"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=317717"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=317717"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}