October Term 2023 · Docket 22-324

Do school board members act as state officials when they block critics on personal social media?

School board members claim personal speech rights. Critics argue the board controls the platform and must follow state law.

Official caption
O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Mooppan argued for the board members. He stated that public officials remain private citizens. He claimed they retain First Amendment rights on personal property.

    Mr. Joshi argued for the critics. He agreed that duty and authority determine capacity. He urged the Court to focus on property access denials.

    Ms. Karlan argued for the critics. She cited the district court finding. She noted that receiving feedback is part of the trustees' duties.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

School board members blocked critics on a personal Facebook page. Critics sued under federal civil rights law. The lower court ruled the board acted as state officials. The board members seek reversal.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 31, 2023.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The board members want the Court to rule that personal social media posts are private speech. They seek to dismiss the civil rights lawsuit.

The critics want the Court to rule that the board members acted as state officials. They seek to keep the civil rights lawsuit alive.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The board members argue they retain First Amendment rights when acting in a personal capacity. They claim they can decide who participates in their own community discussions.

The critics argue the board members had a duty to receive constituent feedback. They claim the board controlled the platform and acted as state officials.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Thomas asked if the source of the site changes the analysis. He asked if a school board official site differs from a personal one.

Chief Justice Roberts asked if the test applies site-by-site or message-by-message. He asked how much blocking triggers state action status.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary between private speech and state action. It determines whether public officials can exclude critics from personal online forums. The outcome shapes civil rights enforcement in digital spaces.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON