Municipal Liability for Viewpoint Discrimination on Official Social Media Accounts: Felts v. Green

Introduction

In the landmark case of Sarah Felts Plaintiff-Appellee v. Megan Ellyia Green, St. Louis Board of Aldermen, President Defendant-Appellant (91 F.4th 938), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit addressed significant issues concerning the intersection of municipal authority, social media management, and constitutional rights. The plaintiff, Sarah Felts, challenged the actions of Megan Ellyia Green, the President of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen, alleging violations of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights after being blocked on the Board President's official Twitter account. This commentary delves into the case's background, judicial reasoning, cited precedents, and its broader implications for future municipal conduct on social media platforms.

Summary of the Judgment

The case originated when Megan E. Green, in her capacity as President of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen, blocked Sarah Felts on Twitter following Felts's critical tweet about the proposed closure of the St. Louis Workhouse. Felts sued Green under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the blocking constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court ruled in favor of Felts, awarding declaratory relief, nominal damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Green appealed the decision, contesting the grant of declaratory relief and nominal damages. Upon review, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the blocking of Felts's account was an act of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination in a designated public forum.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court's decision leaned heavily on established precedents that define the scope of municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Key cases include:

  • Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978): Established that municipalities can be held liable under § 1983 for policies that result in constitutional violations.
  • Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati (1986): Affirmed that municipal liability can be imposed for policies adopted by officials with final policymaking authority.
  • McMILLIAN v. MONROE COUNTY (1997): Reinforced that policies set by municipal policymakers can lead to § 1983 liability.
  • Bolderson v. City of Wentzville (2016): Differentiated between final policy makers and decision makers, emphasizing the importance of final authority in establishing policy.
  • METTLER v. WHITLEDGE (1999): Clarified that municipal liability under § 1983 attaches when a deliberate choice is made from among alternatives by those with final policymaking authority.

These precedents collectively underscore the principle that municipalities cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination, especially in designated public forums, without risking liability under § 1983.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously analyzed whether Megan Green, acting as President of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen, had the final policymaking authority over the management of the official Twitter account. It was established that Green held a distinct office with exclusive control over the office's operations, including hiring and firing staff, and was not subject to external social media policies. The decision to block Felts was deemed a deliberate act of viewpoint discrimination, as it was executed to silence criticism based on the content of Felts's speech, rather than any inappropriate or non-confrontational content.

Furthermore, the court addressed the issue of mootness, concluding that the case remained adjudicable despite Green's subsequent unblocking of Felts, primarily because nominal damages were still at stake, and the potential for future re-blocking existed.

The determination that the President of the Board of Aldermen possessed final policymaking authority was pivotal. Given that his decisions were unilateral, unreviewable, and not bound by broader municipal policies, his action in blocking Felts directly represented official municipal policy, thereby triggering § 1983 liability for violating constitutional rights.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for how municipal officials manage their presence on social media platforms. It establishes that:

  • Official social media accounts associated with governmental functions are considered designated public forums.
  • Actions taken by officials in their official capacity on these platforms are subject to First and Fourteenth Amendment scrutiny.
  • Viewpoint discrimination, such as blocking individuals based on their expressed opinions in these forums, constitutes a violation of constitutional rights.
  • Municipalities can be held liable under § 1983 for policies that restrict free speech in official communications channels.

Future cases involving social media interactions between public officials and citizens will likely reference this decision, emphasizing the necessity for municipalities to develop and adhere to clear, non-discriminatory policies governing official online conduct.

Complex Concepts Simplified

To enhance understanding, here are simplified explanations of several complex legal concepts addressed in the judgment:

  • 42 U.S.C. § 1983: A federal statute that allows individuals to sue state and local government officials for violations of constitutional rights.
  • Viewpoint Discrimination: Unfavorable treatment of speech based on the speaker's perspective or opinion, which is prohibited under the First Amendment.
  • Designated Public Forum: A government-controlled space (including online platforms) that is open for public communication and debate.
  • Final Policymaking Authority: The ultimate decision-making power within a governmental structure, determining official policies.
  • Mootness: A legal doctrine where a case is dismissed because the issues are no longer "live" or the parties lack a stake in the outcome.
  • Declaratory Relief: A court-issued judgment that clarifies the parties' rights without ordering any specific action or awarding damages.
  • Nominal Damages: A small monetary award recognizing that a legal wrong occurred, without reflecting substantial loss.

Conclusion

The Felts v. Green decision serves as a pivotal reminder of the constitutional obligations that municipal officials bear in their use of official communication channels. By affirming that blocking an individual based on their viewpoint constitutes unconstitutional discrimination, the Eighth Circuit has reinforced the sanctity of free speech within designated public forums. This case underscores the need for clear, equitable policies governing official social media accounts to prevent the suppression of dissenting voices. Municipalities must navigate the fine line between managing public discourse and upholding constitutional rights, ensuring that their actions foster open and inclusive communication in the digital age.