O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, 601 U.S. ___ (2024)

Docket No. 22-324
Granted: April 24, 2023
Argued: October 31, 2023
Decided: March 15, 2024
Justia Summary

Two members of the Poway Unified School District Board of Trustees used their public Facebook pages to post content related to their positions, while also communicating with their constituents there. The Facebook pages indicated their official positions. One member also operated a public Twitter page similarly. A couple with children attending schools in the school district posted numerous comments on the social media posts of the Trustees. The Trustees deleted the comments and eventually blocked the couple from commenting. The couple sued for an alleged First Amendment violation under 42 U.S.C. §1983.


Annotation
Primary Holding

The Supreme Court sent a 42 U.S.C. §1983 case back to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to follow an approach that the Supreme Court developed in a companion case.


Opinions
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 created 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 described 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 attending 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 comments on 42 separate posts on O’Connor-Ratcliff ’s Facebook page and 226 identical replies within a 10-minute span to every tweet on her Twitter feed. The Trustees initially 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 Trustees qualified immunity as to the damages claims but allowed 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 and remand the case to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in that case.

It is so ordered.


Materials
Mar 15, 2024 Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the opinion in Lindke v. Freed, 601 U. S. ____ (2024). Opinion per curiam.
Oct 31, 2023 Argued. For petitioners: Hashim M. Mooppan, Washington, D. C.; and Sopan Joshi, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Pamela S. Karlan, Stanford, Cal.
Oct 2, 2023 Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Sep 29, 2023 Record received from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The record is electronic and available on PACER.
Sep 29, 2023 Record from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California received electronically and available with the Clerk. Sealed material available with the Clerk.
Sep 7, 2023 Reply of Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane submitted.
Sep 7, 2023 Reply of petitioners Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Sep 6, 2023 SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, October 31, 2023.
Sep 6, 2023 Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Sep 6, 2023 CIRCULATED.
Aug 15, 2023 Brief amicus curiae of Manhattan Institute filed.
Aug 15, 2023 Amicus brief of First Amendment Clinics, Citizens and Journalists submitted.
Aug 15, 2023 Amicus brief of Protect The First Foundation submitted.
Aug 15, 2023 Amicus brief of THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, AND THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA submitted.
Aug 15, 2023 Amicus brief of Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression submitted.
Aug 15, 2023 Amicus brief of Manhattan Institute submitted.
Aug 15, 2023 Amicus brief of American Atheists, Inc. submitted.
Aug 15, 2023 Motion of United States for leave to participate in oral argument and for divided argument submitted.
Aug 15, 2023 Brief amicus curiae of Protect The First Foundation filed.
Aug 15, 2023 Brief amici curiae of First Amendment Clinics, Citizens and Journalists filed.
Aug 15, 2023 Brief amicus curiae of American Atheists, Inc. filed.
Aug 15, 2023 Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Aug 15, 2023 Brief amici curiae of THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, et al. filed.
Aug 15, 2023 Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed.
Aug 8, 2023 Brief of Christopher Garnier and Kimberly Garnier submitted.
Aug 8, 2023 Brief of respondents Christopher Garnier and Kimberly Garnier filed.
Jul 13, 2023 Amicus brief of Electronic Frontier Foundation submitted.
Jun 30, 2023 Amicus brief of Local Government Legal Center, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, and the International Municipal Lawyers Association submitted.
Jun 30, 2023 Brief amici curiae of The State of Tennessee, et al. filed.
Jun 30, 2023 Amicus brief of The State of Tennessee, et al. submitted.
Jun 30, 2023 Brief amicus curiae of California School Boards Association filed.
Jun 30, 2023 Amicus brief of NetChoice, the Cato Institute, Chamber of Progress and the Computer and Communications Industry Association submitted.
Jun 30, 2023 Amicus brief of The State of Texas submitted.
Jun 30, 2023 Brief amici curiae of NetChoice, the Cato Institute, Chamber of Progress and the Computer and Communications Industry Association filed.
Jun 30, 2023 Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
Jun 30, 2023 Amicus brief of The NRSC submitted.
Jun 30, 2023 Amicus brief of California School Boards Association submitted.
Jun 30, 2023 Brief amici curiae of NetChoice, et al. supporting neither party filed.
Jun 30, 2023 Brief amicus curiae of The NRSC filed (also in 22-611). VIDED.
Jun 30, 2023 Brief amici curiae of Local Government Legal Center, et al. supporting neither party filed.
Jun 30, 2023 Brief amici curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. filed (also in 22-611). VIDED.
Jun 30, 2023 Brief amici curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. filed. VIDED.
Jun 30, 2023 Brief amicus curiae of The State of Texas filed.
Jun 30, 2023 Brief amicus curiae of The NRSC filed. (also in 22-611)
Jun 30, 2023 Brief amici curiae of Local Government Legal Center, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, and the International Municipal Lawyers Association filed.
Jun 23, 2023 Joint Appendix submitted.
Jun 23, 2023 Brief of Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane submitted.
Jun 23, 2023 Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
Jun 23, 2023 Brief of petitioners Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane filed.
Jun 23, 2023 Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
May 5, 2023 Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including June 23, 2023. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 8, 2023.
May 1, 2023 Motion of Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane for an extension of time submitted.
May 1, 2023 Motion for an extension of time filed.
Apr 24, 2023 Petition GRANTED.
Apr 17, 2023 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/21/2023.
Mar 22, 2023 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/14/2023.
Mar 14, 2023 Supplemental brief of petitioners Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane filed.
Jan 4, 2023 Rescheduled.
Dec 21, 2022 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023.
Dec 20, 2022 Reply of petitioners Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff, et al. filed. (To be recovered - corrected version received and distributed December 27, 2022) (Distributed)
Dec 16, 2022 Waiver of the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition pursuant to Rule 15.5 filed by petitioner.
Dec 13, 2022 Brief of respondents Christopher Garnier, et ux. in opposition filed.
Dec 1, 2022 Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including December 13, 2022.
Nov 29, 2022 Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 7, 2022 to December 13, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
Nov 3, 2022 Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 7, 2022.
Nov 2, 2022 Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 7, 2022 to December 7, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
Oct 4, 2022 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 7, 2022)