National guide

Moderating government social media: what the courts have actually decided

Three decisions shape how US public agencies should think about official accounts and comment threads: one from the Supreme Court that applies nationwide, and two from the Seventh Circuit that bind federal courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin and are persuasive elsewhere. Here is what each held — and, just as important, what none of them held.

Lindke v. Freed (U.S. Supreme Court, 2024) — when a personal account becomes state action

In Lindke v. Freed, decided 15 March 2024, the Supreme Court held that a public official's conduct on the official's own social media account is state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only when the official (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State's behalf on the relevant matter and (2) purported to exercise that authority in the relevant posts. The actual authority must be rooted in written law or longstanding custom and must extend to the speech at issue.

This is a national attribution rule for mixed-use accounts. It does not classify every official's account as governmental; it gives courts the test for deciding when blocking or deleting on such an account can be challenged as government action. Read the opinion.

Krasno v. Mnookin (7th Cir. 2025) — comment threads as limited public forums

In Krasno v. Mnookin, decided 1 August 2025, the Seventh Circuit held that the University of Wisconsin–Madison's interactive Facebook and Instagram comment threads were limited public forums. Restrictions there must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral, and the University's ill-defined, context-blind “off-topic” rule, as written and applied, was neither. The court reversed with instructions to enter judgment for Krasno.

The holding binds federal courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin and is persuasive elsewhere. The practical lesson for any agency: moderation rules should be clearly defined, consistently applied and viewpoint neutral. Read the opinion.

Schulte v. Leners (7th Cir. 2026) — deleting comments with no policy in place

In Schulte v. Leners, decided 5 August 2026 and arising from the Town of Cedar Lake, Wisconsin, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to the town chairman on a viewpoint-based comment-deletion claim and dismissed the Town's interlocutory appeal. The absence of any official comment policy or history of content-based restriction was dispositive: the comment section hosted private speech, and by September 2022 it was clearly established that a local government hosting private speech on its official page, without a policy or history regulating that speech, could not selectively delete comments based on viewpoint.

Lindke was not applied, because the case concerned the Town's own official website rather than an official's personal account. The holding binds federal courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin and is persuasive elsewhere. Read the opinion.

What these cases do not hold. None of these courts held that social media archiving, continuous capture or documentation is legally required. The value of a contemporaneous archive is evidentiary and operational: it can help an agency prove what was posted, what policy existed, which comments were moderated, when action occurred and whether comparable viewpoints were treated consistently. That is evidence supporting compliance and defense — not a court-created retention mandate.

Practical steps for agencies

Brolly captures supported social media activity automatically, including comments and later deletions, so your agency can document how its accounts were run. Explore the state-by-state records-law pages or book a demo.

General information, not legal advice. Case law develops; agencies should confirm current authority with counsel.