PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 601 U. S. Part 1 Pages 205–208

OFFICIAL REPORTS OF

THE SUPREME COURT March 15, 2024

Page Proof Pending Publication

REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions

NOTICE: 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, [email protected], of any typographical or other formal errors.

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 Page Proof Pending Publication 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.

206 O'CONNOR-RATCLIFF v. GARNIER Per Curiam Pamela S. Karlan argued the cause for respondents.

With 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 Page Proof Pending Publication 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 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 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- Page Proof Pending Publication 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 208 O'CONNOR-RATCLIFF 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.

Page Proof Pending Publication It is so ordered.

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 Page Proof Pending Publication 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