Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases involving government officials blocking their constituents on social media. 

The plaintiffs are community members, alleging that a city manager in Michigan and school board members in California violated their constitutional rights to free speech. The officials blocked the plaintiffs from their social media pages, used to distribute important government news and information, over comments they did not like. 

If the Supreme Court finds that information proliferation by elected officials on social media counts as “state action,” then any sort of restrictions placed upon citizens from accessing that information is a violation of the First Amendment. 

However, in the Michigan case, lawyers for city manager James Freed argued that his social media account began as a personal one long before his election. He began posting community notices and updates alongside his personal content when appointed to his current position. 

The Supreme Court picks the cases it wants to hear, so the court’s decision to weigh in on social media and the regulation surrounding it is with intention. This falls out of line with comments made earlier this year by an associate justice. 

“We’re a court,” Justice Elena Kagan said during a case involving Google last term. “We really don’t know about these things. You know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet.”