O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier

P R E L I M I N A R Y P R I N T
Volume 601 U. S. Part 1
Pages 205–208
OFFICIAL REPORTS
OF
T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T
March 15, 2024
REBECCA A. WOMELDORF
reporter of decisions
Page Proof Pending Publication
N O T I C E : This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before
the bound volume is published. Users 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.

Page Proof Pending Publication
Cite
as: 601 U. S. 205 (2024)
205
Per Curiam
O’CONNOR-RATCLIFF et al. v. GARNIER et ux.
certiorari
to the united states court of appeals for
the ninth circuit
No. 22–324. Argued October 31, 2023—Decided March 15, 2024
Petitioners Michelle O'Connor-Ratcliff and T. J. Zane created public social-
media pages to promote their campaigns for election to the Poway
Unifed School District (PUSD) Board of Trustees. After they won,
the Trustees noted their offcial positions on their pages, and used their
pages to post PUSD-related content and to solicit feedback and com-
municate with constituents. Respondents Christopher and Kimberly
Garnier, who have children attending PUSD schools, began posting
lengthy and repetitive comments on the Trustees' public pages. The
Trustees initially deleted the Garniers' comments before blocking them
from commenting altogether. The Garniers sued the Trustees pur-
suant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging a violation of their First Amend-
ment rights. As relevant here, the District Court allowed the case to
proceed because the Trustees acted “under color of ” state law for
purposes of § 1983 when they blocked the Garniers. The Ninth Cir-
cuit affrmed, holding that § 1983's state-action requirement was satis-
fed because the offcial “appearance and content” of the Trustees'
pages established a “close nexus between the Trustees' use of their
social media pages and their offcial positions.” 41 F. 4th 1158, 1170–
1171.
Held: Because the Ninth Circuit's approach to § 1983's state-action re-
quirement differs from the one the Court elaborates today in Lindke v.
Freed, 601 U. S. 187, the judgment below is vacated and the case
remanded.
41 F. 4th 1158, vacated and remanded.
Hashim M. Mooppan argued the cause for petitioners.
With him on the briefs were Daniel R. Shinoff and Jack M.
Sleeth, Jr.
Sopan Joshi argued the cause for the United States as
amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were
Solicitor General Prelogar, Principal Deputy Assistant At-
torney General Boynton, Deputy Solicitor General Gannon,
and Daniel Tenny.

Page Proof Pending Publication
206 O'CONNOR-RA
TCLIFF v. GARNIER
Per Curiam
Pamela S. Karlan argued the cause for respondents.
W
ith her on the brief were Cory J. Briggs, Easha Anand,
and Jeffrey L. Fisher.*
Per Curiam.
In 2014, Michelle O'Connor-Ratcliff and T. J. Zane created
public Facebook pages to promote their campaigns for elec-
tion to the Poway Unifed School District (PUSD) Board of
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were fled for the State of Ten-
nessee et al. by Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General of Tennessee,
Andrée S. Blumstein, Solicitor General, J. Matthew Rice, Associate Solici-
tor General, and Gabriel Krimm and Philip Hammersley, Assistant Solic-
itors General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as
follows: Steve Marshall of Alabama, Tim Griffn of Arkansas, Phil Weiser
of Colorado, Raúl R. Labrador of Idaho, Theodore E. Rokita of Indiana,
Brenna Bird of Iowa, Dana Nessel of Michigan, Lynn Fitch of Mississippi,
Austin Knudsen of Montana, Michael T. Hilgers of Nebraska, Drew Wrig-
ley of North Dakota, Ellen F. Rosenblum of Oregon, Michelle A. Henry
of Pennsylvania, Alan Wilson of South Carolina, and Marty J. Jackley of
South Dakota; for the State of Texas by John Scott, Provisional Attorney
General, Lanora C. Pettit, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, William
F. Cole, Assistant Solicitor General, and Brent Webster, First Assistant
Attorney General; for the California School Boards Association by Peter
K. Fagen, Christopher D. Keeler, Gretchen M. Shipley, and Lynn M. Beek-
man; and for the NRSC by Michael E. Toner, Brandis L. Zehr, Jeremy J.
Broggi, and Ryan G. Dollar.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affrmance were fled for American Athe-
ists, Inc., by Geoffrey T. Blackwell; for the American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation et al. by David D. Cole, Vera Eidelman, and Esha Bhandari;
for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression by Robert Corn-
Revere; for the Manhattan Institute by John J. Bursch, Ryan L. Bangert,
Jeremy D. Tedesco, Christopher P. Schandevel, Ilya Shapiro, Cortney C.
Thomas, Brian E. Robison, and Russell T. Brown; and for Protect the
First Foundation by Gene C. Schaerr, Erik S. Jaffe, H. Christopher Barto-
lomucci, and Hannah C. Smith.
Briefs of amici curiae were fled for the Electronic Frontier Foundation
et al. by David Greene and Sophia Cope; for First Amendment Clinics
et al. by Gregg P. Leslie, Sarah Ludington, Lena Shapiro, and Jennifer
Safstrom; for the Local Government Legal Center et al. by Caroline
P. Mackie and Robert E. Hagemann; and for NetChoice et al. by David
M. Gossett, Ambika Kumar, Adam S. Sieff, Carl M. Szabo, Matthew C.
Schruers, and Alexandra J. Sternburg.

Cite
as: 601 U. S. 205 (2024)
207
Per Curiam
Trustees. While O'Connor-Ratcliff and Zane (whom we will
ca
ll 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 communi-
cate with constituents. Their Facebook pages described
them as “Government Offcial[s]” and noted their offcial posi-
tions. 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
comments on 42 separate posts on O'Connor-Ratcliff 's Face-
book 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
qualifed immunity as to the damages claims but allowed the
case to proceed on the merits on the ground that the Trust-
ees acted “under color of ” state law when they blocked the
Garniers. § 1983.
The Ninth Circuit affrmed. It held that § 1983's state-
action requirement was satisfed because there was a “close
nexus between the Trustees' use of their social media pages
and their offcial 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
Page Proof Pending Publication

208 O'CONNOR-RA
TCLIFF v. GARNIER
Per Curiam
“pretense of acting in the performance of [her] duties had
the
purpose and effect of infuencing the behavior of others”;
and (3) the “harm inficted on plaintiff related in some mean-
ingful way either to the offcer'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 offcial “appear-
ance and content” of the Trustees' pages. 41 F. 4th, at 1171.
We granted certiorari in this case and in Lindke v. Freed,
601 U. S. 187 (2024), to resolve a Circuit split about how to
identify state action in the context of public offcials 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 pro-
ceedings consistent with our opinion in that case.
It is so ordered.
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
Reporter’s Note
The attached opinion has been revised to refect the usual publication
and citation style of the United States Reports. The revised pagination
makes available the offcial United States Reports citation in advance of
publication. The syllabus has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions
for the convenience of the reader and constitutes no part of the opinion of
the Court. A list of counsel who argued or fled briefs in this case, and
who were members of the bar of this Court at the time this case was
argued, has been inserted following the syllabus. Other revisions may
include adjustments to formatting, captions, citation form, and any errant
punctuation. The following additional edits were made:
None