Source: https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/4th-circuit-rules-against-virginia-elected-official-who-blocked-constituent-on-facebook/3372/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:15:04+00:00

Document:
The unanimous ruling says elected officials cannot block critical comments on digital platforms used to conduct official government business and to interact with constituents.
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
and Judge Harris concurred. Judge Keenan wrote a separate concurring opinion.
2016. The day before she was sworn in as chair, Randall created the aChair Phyllis J.
businesses, organizations, and brands share their stories and connect with people.a J.A.
403. aPages are managed by people who have personal profiles,a the company explains.
such as road closures) on my county Facebook page (Chair Phyllis J.
the contents of the Chairas Facebook Page.
represented Loudoun County at its aannual credit rating presentationa in New York); J.A.
language or pride in becoming an organ donor.
Lyme disease in Loudouna). And other comments dealt with constituent-specific issues.
each other.a Bland v. Roberts, 730 F.3d 368, 385 (4th Cir. 2013).
School Board joint town hall).
by the Chairas Facebook Page.
Randall publicized the Chairas Facebook Page in her official aChair Phyllis J.
Page] for Updates.a J.A. 341a42, 344.
financial transactions before the School Board.a J.A. 96.
COIA as well.a J.A. 470a71.
meeting, Davisonas comment and replies thereto, and all other public comments. J.A.
reconsidered her actions and unbanned Davisonas Virginia SGP Page.
from commenting on [the Chairas Facebook Page] is viewpoint discrimination.a J.A. 31.
notice and without providing an opportunity for appealing [her] decision.a J.A. 32.
Davison did not challenge Randallas deletion of his post.
well as a separate First Amendment claim against the Loudoun Board.
rights. Finally, Randall asserted that she was entitled to qualified immunity.
Loudoun Board, dismissing it from the suit.
qualified immunity argument. Id. at *8.
legal status of [the Chairas Facebook Page].a Id. at 723.
Randall and Davison, respectively, filed this appeal and cross appeal.
award of prospective declaratory relief.
dimensions, and it may be raised and addressed for the first time on appeal.a Hodges v.
district court possessed jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment proceeding.a Volvo Const.
Equip. N. Am., Inc. v. CLM Equip. Co., Inc., 386 F.3d 581, 591 (4th Cir. 2004).
particularizeda and aactual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.aa Kenny v.
Wilson, 885 F.3d 280, 287 (4th Cir. 2018) (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct.
continuing, present adverse effects,aa a plaintiff seeking adeclaratory or injunctive relief .
. . must establish an ongoing or future injury in fact.a Id. at 287a88 (quoting OaShea v.
Amendment cases,a particularly regarding the injury-in-fact requirement. Cooksey v.
Futrell, 721 F.3d 226, 235 (4th Cir. 2013) (collecting cases).
Amendment challenges to two South Carolina disorderly conduct statutes. Id. at 284.
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334, 2345 (2014)).
disavowed enforcement if plaintiffs engage in similar conduct in the future.a Id. at 289.
Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. at 2345 (internal quotation marks omitted).
and power are never actually abused.a).
credible threat of future enforcement.
See Davison, 267 F. Supp. 3d at 723.
prospective declaratory relief awarded by the district court.
516, 523 (4th Cir. 2003).
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982)).
judgment, and the criteria lack rigid simplicity.a Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 351 (1974)).
attributable to the state. Id. at 526; see also Martinez v. Colon, 54 F.3d 980, 986 (1st Cir.
could not have behaved in that way but for the authority of his office.a); Goldstein v.
Martinez, 54 F.3d at 986.
ause[d] the power and prestige of his state office to damage the plaintiff.a Harris v.
public office.a Rossignol, 316 F.3d at 524.
state law. Davison, 267 F. Supp. 3d at 723. We agree.
policy issues she and the Loudoun Board confront. See supra Part I.A.
swathe[d] the [Chairas Facebook Page] in the trappings of her office.
matters related to [Randall]as office.
actual or apparent dut[ies] of h[er] office,a Martinez, 54 F.3d at 986.
under color of state law in banning Davison from the Chairas Facebook Page.
novo. See Helton, 709 F.3d at 350.
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Mote, 423 F.3d 438, 443 (4th Cir. 2005).
conducta or aexpressive activity,a and the space is compatible with such activity. Id.
Cty., 196 F.3d 186, 190a91 (4th Cir. 1999)).
reached conflicting results. Compare Morgan v. Bevin, 298 F. Supp. 3d 1003, 1010 (E.D.
Knight First Amend. Inst. at Colum. Univ. v. Trump, 302 F. Supp. 3d 541, 573 (S.D.N.Y.
appeal docketed, No. 18-1691 (2d Cir. Oct. 24, 2018).
Randallas invitation, the public made numerous posts on matters of public concern.
received numerous such posts and comments. J.A. 455.
Br. at 19a21, 29a31. We disagree.
regulating property in its charge, may place limitations on speech.a (emphasis added)).
channels operated by a private non-profit corporation constituted public forums), cert.
require that the government have a possessory interest in or title to the underlying land.
alikeda by the Chairas Facebook Page in the right column.
content of a TV programa they had submitted for airing. Id.
forum, notwithstanding that they were operated by a private company. Id. at 306a08.
public access channel [a]s the electronic version of the public square.a Id. at 306.
over, public access channels by virtue of the federal and state regulatory schemes. See id.
channels, those channels are public forums.a (emphasis added)).
Zeran, 129 F.3d at 331.
public access channels constituted a public forum.
municipally owned property? Cf. Bd. of Educ., Island Trees Union Free Sch. Dist. No.
held in a governmental building? Cf. Lyrissa Lidsky, Public Forum 2.0, 91 B.U. L. Rev.
what extent) there is government control over a public access channel.a Id. at 19a20.
governmental speech. See Sutliffe v. Epping School Dist., 584 F.3d 314, 329a30 (1st Cir.
website of group opposed to municipal budget constituted government speech); Page v.
comments and postsais materially different.
Page, and thereby distinguish that user from Randall.
from the government speech framework identified in Pleasant Grove.
monument associated with another religion. Id. at 466.
Chairas Facebook Page, Pleasant Grove, 555 U.S. at 473.
Fellowship of S.C. v. Anderson Sch. Dist. Five, 470 F.3d 1062, 1067 n.2 (4th Cir. 2006).
by a desire to suppress a particular point of view.a Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 812a13.
of interests among the School Board and their family members.a Davison, 267 F. Supp.
solely because the newspaper sought to expose municipal corruption); Knight, 302 F.
afforded by the First Amendment.a Rossignol, 316 F.3d at 521 (quoting McIntyre v.
Ohio Elections Comman, 514 U.S. 334, 346 (1995)).
she banned Davisonas Virginia SGP Page from that forum.
position, nor have we found any. Accordingly, we reject this argument.
against the Loudoun Board. 8 We disagree.
Randall in her official capacity.
correctly rejected Davisonas proposed categorical rule. Id. (citing Cafeteria & Rest.
Soc. Servs. of the City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978)).
legal conclusions de novo. Helton, 709 F.3d at 350.
acted as a municipal policymaker.a Davisonas Br. at 47.
time on appeal. See CoreTel, LLC, 808 F.3d at 988.
(quoting Liverman v. City of Petersburg, 844 F.3d 400, 413 (4th Cir. 2016)).
social media policy governing the Countyas official social media pages.
agency or official.a Id. at 48 (quoting Spell v. McDaniel, 824 F.2d 1380, 1387 (4th Cir.
not reversibly err in rejecting Davisonas official capacity claim.
futile.a Equal Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Assocs., 602 F.3d 597, 603 (4th Cir. 2010).
novo a district courtas denial of leave to amend on the basis of futility. See U.S. ex rel.
Ahumada v. NISH, 756 F.3d 268, 274 (4th Cir. 2014).
to amend came right before trial and after discovery was completea).
accompanying standards.a Katyle v. Penn Nat. Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 471 (4th Cir.
not have survived a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
complaint fails to state a claim.a).
Loudoun Boardas social media policy.
Id. at 59a60 (internal citation omitted).
posts to any municipal Facebook Page.
complaint on the basis of its finding of prejudice but not on the basis of futility.
First Amendment. See Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 523-25 (4th Cir. 2003).
government or a government entity for purposes of her ability to open a public forum.
authority to take any official action on her own.
opened a public forum on Facebook.
placed on a participantas speech.
various roles in hosting public forums established by government officials or entities.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.