Public officials' social media goes to the Supreme Court

Today there were two related cases argued before the Supreme Court which could have implications for local elected officials and their interactions with their constituents. 

There's a good summary of the two cases on SCOTUSblog. In both cases, they have to do with public officials--in one case, it is two elected school board members (O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier which is from California) in the other, it is an appointed city manager (Lindke v. Freed which is from Michigan)--having blocked people on social media. Lower courts have found differently on if a public official can block someone on social media: in the California case, the court found that it was a First Amendment violation (the argument that those blocked were just the right of petitioning for redress), while in the Michigan case, the court observed a line between personal and political persona online. 

The Biden administration is siding with the officials: 

The Biden administration is siding with the officials and urging the court to respect the distinction between officials’ private and public lives. In these cases, the government doesn’t control or operate the accounts, the Justice Department said.

A decision is expected this summer.  

UPDATE: I really recommend LawDork's coverage of this, plus K-12 Dive also does well. Bonus points for the West Wing reference.