O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier (22-324)

argument 22-324

O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 40m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal issue about public officials’ use of personal social‑media pages?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case twenty two three twenty four. Uh O'Connor Radcliffe versus Garnier.

Mr. Mupan 0:09

Mr Mupan. Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. Individuals who hold public office are still private citizens too. When acting in their personal capacity, They retain their First Amendment rights to decide who can participate in a community discussion that they host at their own property. They are thus free to block users from their personal social media pages unless they chose to operate those pages in their official capacities instead. The only principled and workable test to determine the capacity in which they acted is to ask whether they exercised any duties or authorities of their job. And the answer is plainly no, where, as here, the state itself did not control or even facilitate their operation of the pages.

Mr. Mupan 1:00

The officials thus wielded no greater rights or privileges than any other private citizen denying access to their own property. The Ninth Circuit instead held that even if an official was not actually doing her job, state action exists so long as the page's appearance made it look like she was. But that type of reasonable observer inquiry is incapable of consistent application. It is also fundamentally misguided because the officials power to block does not invoke the page's appearance at all. Respondents alternatively insist that petitioners were doing their jobs simply because they used the pages to communicate about their jobs. But that is the type of excessively broad job description this court has repeatedly rejected.

Mr. Mupan 1:49

Because officials could operate such pages in either capacity, the state action test should require clear and objective evidence that is capable of differentiating between the two. That is essential to preserving the robust sphere of individual liberty the doctrine is meant to protect. I welcome this Court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:09

Uh counsel if you had the exact same exchange here but from a uh an official uh site uh of the school board, would it make a difference?

Mr. Mupan 2:20

Yes, Your Honor. That would be state action because that would be exercising the power of the Mr.

Clarence Thomas 2:24

Okay, so let's assume that the official has discretion to either the option to either uh do this on uh the school site or the school board site or on uh the personal computer. What's the difference in what the communication is?

Mr. Mupan 2:41

So in your first hypothetical, the power that's being wielded is the power to exclude someone from government property. Just like if it was a government building, the power to block someone from entering main justice is a s is state action. In the actual case, what is happening is being excluded from private property. And the power to exclude someone from private property is private.

Clarence Thomas 3:01

Well let's let's talk about that just uh briefly. What if the you can access the site remotely from uh uh uh petitioner's computer at home, but it is the the uh school board site and it's not on government's computer.

Mr. Mupan 3:19

Well the question is who controls the account and in this case it's undisputed that this is the account that re belongs to petitioners in their individual capacity. It's an account that they created before they held office and it's an account that they will continue to hold after they leave office.

John G. Roberts 3:34

So is is this a site by site determination or a message by message? In other words, let's say you have uh you know, a site that's used every now and then for what you might characterize as official uh announcements, but the rest of the time it's you know You don't mind. My child got a blue ribbon or something like that. Do you say that well, you look at each episode of blocking or whatever as as governmental because they use it for governmental things from time to time? Or do you say, well, they blocked them for this? In other words, you go through the whole analysis with respect to each

Mr. Mupan 4:13

So the specific conduct that's being challenged here is the blocking. And so the question is: is the blocking official action? In general, I think that that's going to be answered at a site-wide level.