UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

JEFF SWANSON, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

COUY GRIFFIN, Otero County 

Commissioner, in his individual capacity 

acting under the color of law, 

 Defendant - Appellant, 

and 

SYLVIA TILLBROOK, Otero County 

Records Custodian, 

 Defendant. 

No. 21-2034 

(D.C. No. 2:20-CV-00496-KG-GJF) 

(D. N.M.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

In 2019, Defendant/Appellant Couy Griffin, an Otero County Commissioner, 

blocked Plaintiff/Appellee Jeff Swanson from his Facebook profile after 

Mr. Swanson posted comments critical of Mr. Griffin’s service as a county 

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and 

Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

February 25, 2022

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 21-2034 Document: 010110649597 Date Filed: 02/25/2022 Page: 1
2 

commissioner. Mr. Swanson commenced an action alleging Mr. Griffin’s Facebook 

profile was a public forum and Mr. Griffin had engaged in viewpoint discrimination, 

in violation of the First Amendment. Mr. Griffin filed a Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss raising a qualified immunity defense. The 

district court denied the motion, relying on out-of-circuit authority to conclude the 

law clearly established that (1) social media platforms are entitled to the same First 

Amendment protection as other public speech platforms and (2) a government 

official censoring speech violates the speaker’s First Amendment rights. We reverse. 

The Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed lower courts not to define rights at a 

high level of generality when considering a qualified immunity defense. Furthermore, 

two of the three out-of-circuit cases relied on by Mr. Swanson are off-point, and a 

single out-of-circuit case is not capable of clearly establishing a proposition of law. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Mr. Swanson is a self-described “vocal proponent of government transparency 

and accountability.” App. at 12. At times relevant to the allegations in Mr. Swanson’s 

complaint, Mr. Griffin served as an Otero County Commissioner. Mr. Griffin 

maintained a Facebook profile on which he posted some comments about his work as 

an Otero County Commissioner. Mr. Swanson posted comments on Mr. Griffin’s 

Facebook profile and “expressed criticism” about Mr. Griffin’s actions as an Otero 

County Commissioner. Id. Following the criticism, Mr. Griffin blocked Mr. Swanson 

from viewing and commenting on his Facebook profile. After being blocked, 

Mr. Swanson filed a public records request with Otero County for (1) Facebook posts 

Appellate Case: 21-2034 Document: 010110649597 Date Filed: 02/25/2022 Page: 2
3 

by Mr. Griffin pertaining to Otero County business and (2) a list of individuals whom 

Mr. Griffin had blocked. Otero County provided Mr. Swanson a list of individuals 

blocked by Mr. Griffin but informed Mr. Swanson that there were no records of 

Facebook posts by Mr. Griffin pertaining to Otero County business. 

Mr. Swanson filed a complaint in state court advancing two causes of action. 

The first, which is the only cause of action at issue in this appeal, advances a claim 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Mr. Griffin in his individual capacity for First 

Amendment violations sounding in viewpoint discrimination and retaliation.1

Mr. Griffin and Ms. Tillbrook removed the case to federal court based on the first 

cause of action raising a federal question. Mr. Griffin and Ms. Tillbrook then filed a 

motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

For his part, Mr. Griffin advanced a qualified immunity defense, contending 

(1) the allegations do not support the conclusion that his Facebook profile was a 

public forum such that there could be no First Amendment violation; and (2) even if 

Mr. Swanson’s complaint pleads the elements of a constitutional violation, the 

applicability of the First Amendment to a government official’s personal social media 

profile was not clearly established at the time Mr. Griffin blocked Mr. Swanson on 

Facebook. In response, Mr. Swanson argued Mr. Griffin converted his Facebook 

1

 The second cause of action advances a state law claim under New Mexico’s 

Inspection of Public Records Act against Sylvia Tillbrook in her official capacity as 

the Otero County records custodian. This cause of action is not before us on appeal, 

and we take no position on its viability. 

Appellate Case: 21-2034 Document: 010110649597 Date Filed: 02/25/2022 Page: 3
4 

profile into a public forum by discussing Otero County business and permitting 

members of the public to comment on his posts. 

The district court denied the motion to dismiss. As to whether Mr. Griffin’s 

Facebook profile was a public forum, the district court reasoned that the complaint 

contained sufficient allegations on this matter where it stated Mr. Griffin identified 

himself as an Otero County Commissioner, used the profile to post matters relevant 

to Otero County business and to “garner public support for certain public policies,” 

and “entertained comments from the public” on these matters of public concern. Id. at 

132. As to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the district court 

reasoned the law clearly established that (1) social media is entitled to the same First 

Amendment protections as other forums for speech and (2) viewpoint discrimination 

when limiting speech violates the First Amendment. Thus, the district court reasoned 

the law clearly established that if a government official creates a public forum with 

his Facebook profile, the official violates the First Amendment by limiting speech 

and blocking a user based on the content of the user’s posts. In support of this 

analysis, the district court relied heavily on Knight First Amendment Institute at 

Columbia University v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2019). But the district court did 

not cite any Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit authority addressing when an 

individual’s social media profile becomes a public forum. This appeal followed. See 

Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985) (permitting appeal from denial of 

dismissal based on qualified immunity where defense turns on an issue of law). 

Appellate Case: 21-2034 Document: 010110649597 Date Filed: 02/25/2022 Page: 4
5 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review and Qualified Immunity Framework 

We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss premised on 

qualified immunity. Cummings v. Dean, 913 F.3d 1227, 1238 (10th Cir. 2019). 

Qualified immunity “protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who 

knowingly violate the law.’” White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 551 (2017) (per curiam) 

(quoting Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015) (per curiam)). To overcome a 

qualified immunity defense, “the onus is on the plaintiff to demonstrate ‘(1) that the 

official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly 

established at the time of the challenged conduct.’” Quinn v. Young, 780 F.3d 998, 

1004 (10th Cir. 2015) (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011)). As the 

plaintiff must satisfy both prongs of this analysis, a court may address the prongs in 

any order. Id. 

“In order for a constitutional right to be clearly established, the contours of the 

right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what 

he is doing violates that right.” Id. at 1004–05 (internal quotation marks omitted). “A 

plaintiff may satisfy this standard by identifying an on-point Supreme Court or 

published Tenth Circuit decision; alternatively, the clearly established weight of 

authority from other courts must have found the law to be as the plaintiff maintains.” 

Id. at 1005 (internal quotation marks omitted). To demonstrate that the law is clearly 

established under the “weight of authority” approach, a plaintiff must identify more 

than “a handful of decisions from courts in other circuits that lend support to his 

Appellate Case: 21-2034 Document: 010110649597 Date Filed: 02/25/2022 Page: 5
6 

claim.” Christensen v. Park City Mun. Corp., 554 F.3d 1271, 1278 (10th Cir. 2009); 

see also Routt v. Howry, 835 F. App’x 379, 385 (10th Cir. 2020) (unpublished) 

(“[O]nly one case from another circuit . . . is insufficient to constitute the weight of 

authority from other circuits that is necessary to finding it clearly established that 

defendants’ particular conduct violated [plaintiff’s] rights.”); Parkhurst v. Lampert, 

339 F. App’x 855, 861 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (citing Christensen and 

concluding “a lone case from another circuit does not satisfy the ‘weight of authority’ 

standard”). 

While “the Supreme Court has ‘repeatedly told courts not to define clearly 

established law at a high level of generality,’” it has also explained that “‘officials 

can still be on notice that their conduct violates established law even in novel factual 

circumstances.’” Quinn, 780 F.3d at 1005 (first quoting al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742; and 

then quoting Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002)). But more recent Supreme 

Court case law remarks that “the clearly established law must be ‘particularized’ to 

the facts of the case.” White, 137 S. Ct. at 552 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 

U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). And plaintiffs may not identify their claim through “extremely 

abstract rights” because this would “convert the rule of qualified immunity into a rule 

of virtually unqualified liability.” Id. (quoting Anderson, 483 U.S. at 639). 

Ultimately, we must assess whether “existing precedent [has] placed the statutory or 

constitutional question beyond debate.” Id. at 551 (quoting Mullenix, 577 U.S. at 12). 

Appellate Case: 21-2034 Document: 010110649597 Date Filed: 02/25/2022 Page: 6
7 

B. Analysis 

We conclude Mr. Swanson did not carry his burden on the clearly established 

prong of the qualified immunity analysis. While Mr. Swanson has identified some 

generally applicable rules of law, Mr. Swanson has not identified a Supreme Court or 

Tenth Circuit case addressing a set of facts sufficiently similar to those surrounding 

Mr. Griffin’s Facebook profile. Furthermore, although Mr. Swanson attempts to rely 

on out-of-circuit authority to demonstrate that the right he asserts is clearly 

established under the weight of authority approach, only one of the three 

out-of-circuit decisions is potentially on-point. But a plaintiff’s identification of a 

single out-of-circuit case is not sufficient to satisfy the weight of authority approach. 

“It is axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on its 

substantive content or the message it conveys.” Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of 

Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 828 (1995). If the government opens “a limited forum, 

. . . [it] must respect the lawful boundaries it has itself set. [It] may not exclude 

speech where its distinction is not ‘reasonable in light of the purpose served by the 

forum,’ nor may it discriminate against speech on the basis of its viewpoint.” Id. at 

829 (quoting Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 

804–06 (1985)). Furthermore, “the law is settled that as a general matter the First 

Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to 

retaliatory actions, including criminal prosecutions, for speaking out.” Hartman v. 

Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256 (2006). 

Appellate Case: 21-2034 Document: 010110649597 Date Filed: 02/25/2022 Page: 7
8 

These general principles apply not only to traditional forums like a public 

sidewalk, but also to “metaphysical” forums. Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 830. Thus, the 

First Amendment protects against viewpoint discrimination by the government in 

government-created public forums on social media. Packingham v. North Carolina, 

137 S. Ct. 1730, 1735 (2017). 

But Mr. Swanson, critically, has not identified law clearly establishing when 

an individual government official’s social media profile becomes a public forum. The 

Supreme Court has not addressed this question. See Davison v. Randall, 912 F.3d 

666, 682 (4th Cir. 2019) (“[T]he Supreme Court nor any Circuit has squarely 

addressed whether, and in what circumstances, a governmental social media page . . . 

constitutes a public forum[.]”); see also Biden v. Knight First Amendment Inst. at 

Columbia Univ., 141 S. Ct. 1220, 1221 (2021) (Thomas, J., concurring) (observing 

that “applying old doctrines to new digital platforms is rarely straightforward” and 

suggesting that First Amendment protection might not extend to social media pages 

where a private company controls the platform and could suspend or ban any user); 

Morgan v. Bevin, 298 F. Supp. 3d 1003, 1009 (E.D. Ky. 2018) (“This [c]ourt is 

mindful that it is one of the first to wrestle with the intersections of the application of 

free speech to developing technology and First Amendment rights of access to public 

officials using privately-owned channels of communication. It is a case of first 

impression in the Sixth Circuit and, if appealed, would be a case of first impression 

to the Supreme Court of the United States as well.”). Nor has Mr. Swanson identified 

any decision by this court addressing this question. Rather, Mr. Swanson relies upon 

Appellate Case: 21-2034 Document: 010110649597 Date Filed: 02/25/2022 Page: 8
9 

three out-of-circuit cases: (1) Davison v. Randall, 912 F.3d 666 (4th Cir. 2019); 

(2) Robinson v. Hunt Cnty., 921 F.3d 440 (5th Cir. 2019); and (3) Knight First 

Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2019). 

We discuss each in turn. 

In Davison, Phyllis Randall, the chair of a county board of supervisors blocked 

the plaintiff from a Facebook page after the plaintiff posted a series of comments 

critical of Ms. Randall and the Board and suggested that Board members were 

operating under a conflict of interest. 912 F.3d at 675–76. The Fourth Circuit held 

Ms. Randall’s action violated the First Amendment because it amounted to an effort 

“to suppress speech critical of [her] conduct of official duties or fitness for public 

office.” Id. at 680 (quoting Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 524 (4th Cir. 

2003)). On the surface, this case appears to support Mr. Swanson’s position. But a 

closer review demonstrates that the facts of Davison are sufficiently distinguishable 

from those alleged by Mr. Swanson. 

The Fourth Circuit concluded Ms. Randall’s Facebook page was a public 

forum based on when she created the page, how she labeled the page, and how she 

used the page. Id. at 680–81. On the former two considerations, Ms. Randall created 

the page the day before she was sworn in as Chair of the Board, titling the page 

“Chair Phyllis J. Randall” and designating the page as a “governmental official” 

page. Id. at 673. Thus, while Mr. Swanson’s complaint alleges Mr. Griffin used his 

Facebook profile in a manner similar to Ms. Randall, it is devoid of allegations that 

Appellate Case: 21-2034 Document: 010110649597 Date Filed: 02/25/2022 Page: 9
10 

Mr. Griffin created and titled his Facebook profile in a manner similar to the facts at 

issue in Davison. 

Turning to Robinson, there the plaintiff raised a First Amendment claim after 

being blocked from accessing and commenting on a Facebook page. 921 F.3d at 445. 

The Fifth Circuit held that “[o]fficial censorship based on a state actor’s subjective 

judgment that the content or protected speech is offensive or inappropriate is 

viewpoint discrimination.” Id. at 447. But this holding was in the context of a 

Facebook page maintained by and titled under the name of the Hunt County Sheriff’s 

Office. Id. at 445. This fact makes Robinson entirely distinguishable from the alleged 

facts underlying Mr. Griffin’s creation and maintenance of his Facebook profile 

because the Hunt County Sheriff’s Office, who created the social media forum, is a 

government entity rather than a private individual who also serves as a government 

official. Furthermore, where the Hunt County Sheriff’s Office never contested 

whether its Facebook page was a public forum, the Fifth Circuit did not need to 

decide whether or when a social media account can become a public forum. Id. at 

448. Thus, Robinson does not help clearly establish the missing aspect of 

Mr. Swanson’s argument against qualified immunity. 

Finally, Mr. Swanson relies upon the Second Circuit’s decision in Knight First 

Amendment Institute. We need not analyze whether this decision is on-point with the 

facts alleged in Mr. Swanson’s complaint. This is because a single out-of-circuit case 

does not satisfy the weight of authority approach for demonstrating the law is clearly 

established. See Christensen, 554 F.3d at 1278; see also Routt, 835 F. App’x at 385; 

Appellate Case: 21-2034 Document: 010110649597 Date Filed: 02/25/2022 Page: 10
11 

Parkhurst, 339 F. App’x at 861. Accordingly, even assuming the Second Circuit 

decision is on-point, Mr. Swanson has not carried his burden on the clearly 

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.2 

III. CONCLUSION 

We REVERSE the district court’s denial of Mr. Griffin’s motion to dismiss 

based on qualified immunity and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with 

this decision. 

Entered for the Court 

Carolyn B. McHugh 

Circuit Judge 

2

 Even if we had concluded Davison shared a sufficient nexus of facts with the 

allegations in Mr. Swanson’s complaint, two out-of-circuit decisions—Davison and 

the Second Circuit’s decision in Knight First Amendment Institute—would not 

amount to a sufficient body of out-of-circuit case law to satisfy the weight of 

authority approach. 

Appellate Case: 21-2034 Document: 010110649597 Date Filed: 02/25/2022 Page: 11