(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 , 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus LINDKE v. FREED CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 22–611. Argued October 31, 2023—Decided March 15, 2024 James Freed, like countless other Americans, created a private Facebook profile sometime before 2008. He eventually converted his profile to a public “page,” meaning that anyone could see and comment on his posts. In 2014, Freed updated his Facebook page to reflect that he was appointed city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, describing himself as “Daddy to Lucy, Husband to Jessie and City Manager, Chief Admin- istrative Officer for the citizens of Port Huron, MI.” Freed continued to operate his Facebook page himself and continued to post prolifically (and primarily) about his personal life. Freed also posted information related to his job, such as highlighting communications from other city officials and soliciting feedback from the public on issues of concern. Freed often responded to comments on his posts, including those left by city residents with inquiries about community matters. He occa- sionally deleted comments that he considered “derogatory” or “stupid.” After the COVID–19 pandemic began, Freed posted about it. Some posts were personal, and some contained information related to his job. Facebook user Kevin Lindke commented on some of Freed’s posts, un- equivocally expressing his displeasure with the city’s approach to the pandemic. Initially, Freed deleted Lindke’s comments; ultimately, he blocked him from commenting at all. Lindke sued Freed under 42 U. S. C. §1983 , alleging that Freed had violated his First Amendment rights. As Lindke saw it, he had the right to comment on Freed’s Fa- cebook page because it was a public forum. The District Court deter- mined that because Freed managed his Facebook page in his private capacity, and because only state action can give rise to liability under §1983, Lindke’s claim failed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Held: A public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official’s social-media page engages in state action under §1983 only if 2 LINDKE v. FREED Syllabus the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that au- thority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts. Pp. 5–15. (a) Section 1983 provides a cause of action against “[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or us- age, of any State” deprives someone of a federal constitutional or stat- utory right. (Emphasis added.) Section 1983’s “under color of” text makes clear that it is a provision designed as a protection against acts attributable to a State, not those of a private person. In the run-of- the-mill case, state action is easy to spot. Courts do not ordinarily pause to consider whether §1983 applies to the actions of police offic- ers, public schools, or prison officials. Sometimes, however, the line between private conduct and state action is difficult to draw. In Griffin v. Maryland, 378 U. S. 130 , for example, it was the source of the power, not the identity of the employer