Seventh Circuit Clarifies that Public-University Social-Media Comment Threads Are “Limited Public Forums” Subject to Viewpoint-Neutral Moderation

Introduction

In Madeline Krasno v. Jennifer Mnookin, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit confronted a 21^st-century First Amendment problem: when a public university invites public comment on its official Facebook and Instagram accounts, does it speak for itself, or does it create a space for the public to speak? The Court answered that question by holding—over a vigorous dissent—that the interactive comment threads on the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s (“UW-Madison”) social-media posts constitute limited public forums. As a result, any restriction the University imposes on those comment spaces must be both (1) reasonable in light of the forum’s purpose and (2) viewpoint-neutral. Because the University’s “off-topic” rule—implemented largely through bulk “keyword filters”— failed both prongs, the Court ruled it unconstitutional.

Summary of the Judgment

Standing & Sovereign Immunity: Krasno had Article III standing to challenge ongoing use of keyword filters. The Court applied Ex parte Young to allow prospective injunctive and declaratory relief, but affirmed sovereign-immunity bars as to purely past actions (her 2020 account restriction and a single hidden comment).
Government-speech doctrine: The comments are private speech; UW-Madison’s involvement (automated filters and sporadic manual hiding) was too minimal to transform those comments into university speech.
Forum classification: The Court designated the comment threads as limited public forums, not non-public forums, because the University opened them for public engagement subject only to an (ill-defined) “on-topic” criterion.
Reasonableness & Viewpoint Neutrality: • Viewpoint: Keyword filters suppressed phrases associated with criticism of animal testing, impermissibly discriminating against Krasno’s viewpoint. • Reasonableness: The “off-topic” standard was vague and inconsistently enforced, rendering it an unreasonable restriction in the chosen forum.
Disposition: Summary judgment for defendants reversed; remanded to enter judgment for Krasno and craft appropriate prospective relief.

Analysis

4.1 Precedents Cited

The panel wove together a modern line of Supreme Court cases on social-media speech, the government-speech doctrine, and forum analysis:

Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) – recognized social media as a “modern public square.”
Shurtleff v. Boston, 596 U.S. 243 (2022) – explained how to distinguish government speech from private speech by examining the government’s degree of control and public perception.
Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024) – emphasized that “curated compilations” of third-party speech can be the speaker’s own expression (cited extensively in the dissent).
Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans, 576 U.S. 200 (2015) & Pleasant Grove v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) – government selection of monuments / license plates constituted government speech.
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 585 U.S. 1 (2018) – reasonableness requirement for speech restrictions in non-public forums.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Tabak, 109 F.4th 627 (D.C. Cir. 2024) – first appellate decision addressing NIH comment threads; persuasive authority for limited-forum analysis (endorsed by the majority, questioned by the dissent).

4.2 Legal Reasoning

4.2.1 Standing and Ex parte Young

The district court had conflated standing with merits by reasoning that Krasno lacked a “right” to comment off-topic. The Seventh Circuit corrected this: constitutional injury in fact existed once Krasno alleged suppressed speech; whether the suppression is lawful goes to the merits. Because keyword filters remain active, injury is ongoing and redressable by an injunction.

For sovereign immunity, prospective relief could target continuing moderation policies, but not retrospective declaratory relief for past one-off actions.

4.2.2 Government-Speech Doctrine

Applying Shurtleff’s “holistic inquiry,” the Court asked:

Does UW-Madison meaningfully shape comment messages? – No; comments appear automatically, moderators only occasionally hide them.
Would observers perceive comments as university speech? – Unlikely, because each comment bears the user’s handle directly adjacent to the text.
Is there a history of the government controlling that medium to speak for itself? – Social-media comment areas historically facilitate robust public exchange, not government pronouncements.

Result: comments remain private speech, so forum analysis applies.

4.2.3 Forum Classification

The Court distinguished four forums: traditional public, designated public, limited public, and non-public. It concluded that UW-Madison invited public comment but simultaneously reserved the right to moderate “off-topic” posts. That reservation—clear in a pre-existing “Social Media Statement”—showed intent to open the forum only for certain subjects (posts relating to the University). Hence, a limited public forum.

4.2.4 Viewpoint Neutrality

Keyword lists disproportionately captured anti-animal-testing words (“vivisection,” “torture,” “WNPRC,” “#freebabycocoa”), thereby silencing one side of the debate.
Evidence: an admitted on-topic comment from 22 Dec 2020 was nevertheless hidden.
The University permitted other critical or entirely unrelated comments when they did not implicate animal-testing phrases, indicating selective targeting.

4.2.5 Reasonableness

Echoing Mansky, the Court invalidated the rule because it was “indeterminate” and lacked “objective, workable standards.” The University’s one-sentence policy (“off-topic comments may be removed”) gave unbridled discretion to moderators. Automated filters aggravated unreasonableness: they blindly hide comments irrespective of a post’s subject, so even an on-topic cancer-dog post is suppressed if it references “lab.”

4.3 The Dissent (Judge Easterbrook)

Judge Easterbrook analogized the University’s Facebook page to an alumni magazine (a curated publication). Under Moody, curation is itself expressive speech; thus the University should be free to decide what letters or comments to include. He relied on Pleasant Grove, Walker, and Hurley to argue that selection (or exclusion) of third-party content can be government speech. For him, existence of written content guidelines is precisely what Shurtleff said would convert private expression into government speech, so the majority erred in treating the forum as public at all.

He warned that the ruling will encourage agencies simply to disable comments, reducing public discourse. He also questioned reliance on PETA v. Tabak and the vacated Knight v. Trump decisions.

4.4 Impact of the Judgment

Prospective Effects

Public Universities & Schools: Must now treat social-media comment areas as limited public forums in the Seventh Circuit (IL, IN, WI), requiring clear, viewpoint-neutral moderation policies.
Government Agencies: The reasoning is easily extendable to municipal, state, and federal accounts, pressuring them to refine keyword filtering or adopt facially clear topic rules.
Litigation Strategy: Plaintiffs challenging social-media removal actions can frame claims as as-applied viewpoint discrimination rather than facial overbreadth, and avoid standing pitfalls.
Policy Drafting: Agencies will likely publish more detailed “comment policies” clarifying scope, adopting post-specific moderation, and building review mechanisms for automatic filtering.
Potential Circuit Split: The dissent’s embrace of Moody sets up tension with the majority view, mirroring disagreements between the D.C., Second, and now Seventh Circuits; Supreme Court review may be sought to reconcile approaches.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Limited Public Forum: Government property that is open for public expression only on certain topics or by certain speakers. Government can regulate content so long as the rules are reasonable and do not favor one viewpoint over another.
Viewpoint Discrimination: Government treating speech differently because of the opinion it expresses. Always forbidden in any forum once the government has allowed the subject matter.
Keyword Filters: Automated lists of words that trigger hiding or deletion of comments. Convenient but blunt; courts scrutinize them when they correlate too closely with a disfavored viewpoint.
Government-Speech Doctrine: When the government itself is the speaker, the First Amendment doesn’t constrain its message. The tricky part is deciding who is speaking.
Reasonableness Test: In limited/non-public forums, a speech restriction must rationally relate to the forum’s mission and must provide clear, objective standards to avoid arbitrary enforcement.
Ex parte Young: Legal fiction allowing a plaintiff to sue state officials (but not the state) for ongoing constitutional violations and obtain forward-looking relief despite state sovereign immunity.

Conclusion

Krasno v. Mnookin joins a growing body of appellate authority adapting century-old forum doctrine to digital frontiers. By declaring a university’s social-media comment threads to be limited public forums—and by striking down viewpoint-discriminatory keyword filters—the Seventh Circuit reinforces that public bodies cannot quietly sideline dissent online, even with sophisticated technology. The decision simultaneously instructs governmental actors on crafting clearer, post-specific, and viewpoint-neutral moderation schemes. Whether the Supreme Court will ultimately align with the majority’s test or the dissent’s curation-as-government-speech approach remains to be seen, but this opinion is now the controlling precedent inside the circuit and an influential marker nationally. Government entities who continue to “hide” uncomfortable viewpoints on official social-media pages should take heed—or be prepared for First Amendment litigation in the digital town square.