Court Opinion

ID: 9950989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 15:02:21.826976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:50.462085
License: Public Domain

(Slip Opinion)            Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024)                              1

                                     Per Curiam

       NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
       United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
       Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543,
       pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
                                     _________________

                                     No. 22–324
                                     _________________

          MICHELLE O’CONNOR-RATCLIFF, ET AL.,
             PETITIONERS v. CHRISTOPHER
                    GARNIER, ET UX.
 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
            APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
                                  [March 15, 2024]

  PER CURIAM.
  In 2014, Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T. J. Zane cre-
ated public Facebook pages to promote their campaigns for
election to the Poway Unified School District (PUSD) Board
of Trustees. While O’Connor-Ratcliff and Zane (whom we
will call the Trustees) both had personal Facebook pages
that they shared with friends and family, they used their
public pages for campaigning and issues related to PUSD.
After they won election, the Trustees continued to use their
public pages to post PUSD-related content, including
board-meeting recaps, application solicitations for board
positions, local budget plans and surveys, and public safety
updates. They also used their pages to solicit feedback and
communicate with constituents. Their Facebook pages de-
scribed them as “Government Official[s]” and noted their
official positions. O’Connor-Ratcliff also created a public
Twitter page, which she used in much the same way.
  Christopher and Kimberly Garnier, who have children at-
tending PUSD schools, often criticized the board of trustees.
They began posting lengthy and repetitive comments on the
Trustees’ social-media posts—for instance, nearly identical
2             O’CONNOR-RATCLIFF v. GARNIER

                         Per Curiam

comments on 42 separate posts on O’Connor-Ratcliff ’s Fa-
cebook page and 226 identical replies within a 10-minute
span to every tweet on her Twitter feed. The Trustees ini-
tially deleted the Garniers’ comments before blocking them
from commenting altogether.
   The Garniers sued the Trustees under 42 U. S. C. §1983,
seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief for
the alleged violation of their First Amendment rights. At
summary judgment, the District Court granted the Trus-
tees qualified immunity as to the damages claims but al-
lowed the case to proceed on the merits on the ground that
the Trustees acted “under color of ” state law when they
blocked the Garniers. §1983.
   The Ninth Circuit affirmed. It held that §1983’s state-
action requirement was satisfied because there was a “close
nexus between the Trustees’ use of their social media pages
and their official positions.” 41 F. 4th 1158, 1170 (2022).
The court cited its own state-action precedent, which holds
that an off-duty state employee acts under color of law if
she (1) “purports to or pretends to act under color of law”;
(2) her “pretense of acting in the performance of [her] duties
had the purpose and effect of influencing the behavior of
others”; and (3) the “harm inflicted on plaintiff related in
some meaningful way either to the officer’s governmental
status or to the performance of [her] duties.” Ibid. (citing
Naffe v. Frey, 789 F. 3d 1030, 1037 (CA9 2015); internal
quotation marks and alterations omitted). Applying that
framework, the court found state action based largely on
the official “appearance and content” of the Trustees’ pages.
41 F. 4th, at 1171.
   We granted certiorari in this case and in Lindke v. Freed,
___ U. S. ___ (2024), to resolve a Circuit split about how to
identify state action in the context of public officials using
social media. 598 U. S. ___ (2023). Because the approach
that the Ninth Circuit applied is different from the one we
have elaborated in Lindke, we vacate the judgment below
                Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024)                  3

                         Per Curiam

and remand the case to the Ninth Circuit for further pro-
ceedings consistent with our opinion in that case.

                                                 It is so ordered.