The Biden-Harris campaign said it raised more than $53 million in February — marking its strongest month since the reelection campaign launched in April 2023.
The campaign said that as of Feb. 29, it has a record $155 million in cash on hand for the highest total amassed by any Democratic candidate in history at this point in the cycle. More than $331 million has been raised since April, the campaign said.
The sum isn’t from the campaign solely, but from Biden’s larger political operation, including the campaign, the Democratic National Committee and their joint filing committees.
“We’re proud of the record-breaking fundraising machine we’ve built that is going toward reaching the voters about the stakes of this election — to expanding our footprint in the states, investing in paid media, and having our principals barnstorm the country. And we’re just getting started,” Julie Chavez Rodriguez, Biden-Harris 2024 campaign manager, said in a statement.
“The stakes of this election couldn’t be higher for the future of this country, and our historic fundraising operation is making sure every voter knows these stakes come November,” she added.
According to the campaign, they generated $1.6 million in grassroots revenue in the 48 hours following former President Donald Trump’s victory in the GOP primary in South Carolina on Feb. 24.
The campaign’s announcement comes days before the deadline for February campaign reports to be filed with the FEC.
The numbers don’t reflect the fundraising haul that came from the president’s State of the Union address, which was on March 7.
Biden and Trump clinched the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations, respectively, last week, sealing a rematch between the two candidates.
President Joe Biden took jabs at former President Donald Trump during Saturday’s Gridiron Club Dinner, an annual roast in Washington where politicians and journalists dress in white tie to continue a longstanding, bipartisan tradition.
“The big news this week is two candidates clinched their parties’ nomination for president,” Biden said in remarks. “One candidate is too old, mentally unfit to be president. The other’s me.”
Biden also teased Republicans who, he said, “would rather fail at impeachment than succeed at anything else.”
“They want a secure border but they block it for the strongest border bill ever,” he said. “They take credit for one [of the] biggest infrastructure laws but voted against it. And I’m the one confused?”
It was Biden’s first appearance at the dinner during his presidency and comes as he enters one of the longest general election cycles in American history, after he and Trump clinched the number of delegates necessary to win their party’s nominations this week.
“In the coming months, Kamala and I will be making the case how Americans are better off than four years ago. How we got so much though the pandemic, turned around the economy, reestablished America’s leadership in the world all without encouraging the American people to inject bleach,” Biden said, referencing Trump suggesting “injecting” disinfectant to kill COVID in 2020.
“All without destroying the economy, embarrassing us around the world or itching for insurrection,” he added. “Look, I wish these were jokes but they’re not.”
Shifting to a serious tone, the president argued democracy and freedom are under attack, a message central to his re-election campaign.
“[Vladimir] Putin’s on the march in Europe. My predecessor bows down to him and says to him. ‘Do whatever the hell you want.’ Former American president actually said that,” Biden said, going on to note Ukrainian Ambassador Oksana Markarova and Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas present in the ballroom.
“We will not bow down. They will not bow down, and I will not bow down,” said a forceful Biden.
He then turned to what he called the threat at home, after “insurrectionists” stormed the Capitol over “lies” about the 2020 election. He said “the threat remains” with “poison coursing through the veins of our democracy” and accused Trump of vilifying the press.
“He calls you the enemy of the people. Even as many of you risk your life and do your job. And sometimes even give your life to do your jobs,” he said, adding the U.S. is “doing everything we can to bring Evan [Gershkovich] and Austin [Tice] home,” referring to an American journalist imprisoned in Russia since last year and another missing in Syria since 2012.
“Let me state the obvious, you are not the enemy of the people,” Biden said. “You are a pillar of any free society. And I may not always agree with your coverage or admire it, but I do admire your courage. Good journalism holds a mirror up to a country for us to reflect the good, the bad, the truth about who we are.”
“This is not hyperbole: We need you,” he added. “Democracy is at risk and the American people need to know.”
Vice President Kamala Harris was also in attendance at the Washington Grand Hyatt, along with at least eight other Cabinet members, at least five members of Congress and five governors, according to a program of the event.
It was the first time a president has attended the annual dinner, where cameras are not permitted, since Trump was present in 2018.
In 2022, at least 72 attendees reported testing positive for COVID after the high-profile event.
(WASHINGTON) — Rep. Lauren Boebert is walking the narrowest of tightropes as she campaigns to remain in Congress. But operatives warn against writing her off just yet.
The Colorado Republican has established a reputation as a fiery ally of former President Donald Trump with a penchant for theatrics on Capitol Hill. That brand almost caught up with her in 2022, when she won reelection by just 546 votes in the state’s 3rd Congressional District, which hadn’t elected a Democrat to the House of Representatives since 2008.
The headwinds she’s facing have grown only stronger since then: Video of her groping a date at a public theatrical performance went viral, puncturing her image as a Christian conservative, and family drama, including her son’s arrest, have emerged as distractions.
Boebert decided to seek “redder” pastures by running this year in the neighboring 4th Congressional District to replace outgoing Rep. Ken Buck, a fellow Republican but no close ally. The strategy drew howls of carpetbagging and was jarred by Buck’s sudden announcement that he’ll retire next week instead of at the end of his term in January, setting up a special election to serve the final months of his term on June 25, the same day as the regularly scheduled primary.
Boebert is not running in the special election, but she is running in the primary — waging the risky bet that voters will pick two separate candidates on their two ballots that day.
But she still brings with her a bulging war chest and high name recognition, on top of running against a crowded field of more establishment candidates to split up the anti-Boebert vote this November.
“You can’t write her political obituary, in my opinion,” said longtime Colorado pollster Floyd Ciruli, who is not aligned with any candidate in the race.
Boebert’s electoral future, already the focus of intense speculation after she announced plans to jump districts, was thrown into further question this week when Buck announced his expedited retirement, which triggered the special election.
Boebert, who would not be able to run in the special election without giving up her current seat, opted to stay put and run only in the primary. The decision helped avoid a vacancy that could’ve stressed Republicans already-microscopic majority, but it does offer her opponents for the regularly scheduled primary an opportunity to gain a leg up.
The state party will pick a nominee at a convention to run in the special election, offering that candidate a likely boost in attention and fundraising and, thus, a boost in the regular primary that same day. Meanwhile, it’ll leave Boebert’s electoral future in the hands of voters who’ll have to discern the differences between the overall races and the specific ballots, and then choose to support two different candidates on the same day.
“One of these candidates is going to get a little bit of a boost coming out of there,” former Colorado Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhams said of the nominating convention. “That person’s name will be the Republican nominee on the special election ballot. And then you’ve got all these five or six people on the primary ballot that day.”
The structural headwinds only compound on what observers said was damage to her personal brand, which was estimated to be verging on toxic in the 3rd Congressional District.
Her opponents have taken notice, with one asking her at a debate in January to define “carpetbagger.”
“Her personal brand, it is terrible. Between not only the particular problem in the 4th [Congressional District], that is she’s a carpetbagger, but what she brings over with her is just terrible. Under no normal conditions would she be elected,” Ciruli said.
Boebert is not shying away from her move, saying earlier this year she doesn’t expect a “coronation” in her new district, while leaning into her outsider message of taking conservatives’ fight against the establishment to the halls of Congress.
In a video announcement saying she wouldn’t run in the special election, she lambasted Buck’s maneuver as “a gift to the uniparty” and the product of a “swampy backroom deal to try to rig an election.”
Her campaign is committed to getting that message out, blitzing the district with campaign events to introduce her to a new voter base.
“Despite the Establishment’s desperate efforts to confuse Coloradans by forcing a special election on the same day as the regular primary election, we know grassroots conservatives in the 4th District are energized and motivated to vote for Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, the Trump-endorsed, proven conservative in this race,” said Boebert campaign manager Drew Sexton.
“It may take targeted educational efforts, but we have the resources and platform to turn out the vote for Congresswoman Boebert no matter what the system looks like.”
Operatives assessed that message offers her the best chance at staying in Washington.
“She talks a lot about, ‘I’ve been there. These other candidates are good people, but guess what, I’m the person who’s been on the front line. I’m the fighter. I’m the one out there helping Donald Trump in Congress,’ and I think that probably is as effective of a message as she can have. She also talks about, ‘yeah, I moved to a new district, but the values of the fourth district are the same as the third district.’ That’s the best way she can handle it,” Wadhams said.
“I think she’s probably running as good of a campaign as you can, given that she’s a carpetbagger in a new district and that she’s got all these personal problems.”
In all, Boebert is running a playbook reminiscent of one that worked for one Republican outsider in 2016: Donald Trump.
Boebert, boosted by a small-dollar donor base fueled in part by her substantial name recognition, entered 2024 with a $1.3 million war chest that’s magnitudes bigger than those of her rivals. That, along with strong appeal to the GOP’s right flank, offers her a durable slice of the electorate in June, while the rest of the pie is being competed over by a crowded field of opponents.
“She’s got the money, she’s got universal name identification, she has several other people running, so there’ll be a multi-candidate ballot. And she had initially Johnson’s support, and now she has Trump’s. And that’s a Trump district,” Ciruli said.
“Even though her personal brand is as low as you can go and damaged, she still would probably find a third of the vote,” he added. “And in a multi-candidate field, we assume a third of the vote is going to give her the primary.”
Still, the costs of falling short are high — with bridges burned in the 3rd Congressional District on top of a bogged-down brand, a defeat in June would leave her with little recourse to be a player in Colorado politics.
“If she doesn’t win this primary in June, I don’t see how she has much of a political future in Colorado. She can’t go back to the third district, which she basically abandoned. And she gave it her best shot in this new district, and she was rejected,” Wadhams said of a hypothetical loss in June. “We’ll see what happens.”
(WASHINGTON) — Former Trump White House adviser Peter Navarro on Friday filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to remain out of prison as he works to overturn his conviction on two counts of contempt of Congress.
Navarro was ordered on Monday to report to prison in Miami on March 19, to serve a four-month sentence.
He was convinced in September of two counts of contempt of Congress for refusing to provide testimony and documents to the House Select Committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
In his filing to the Supreme Court, Navarro’s attorney Stanley Woodward argued that Navarro “is indisputably neither a flight risk nor a danger to public safety should he be released pending appeal.”
In testimony during Navarro’s trial, former Jan. 6 committee staff director David Buckley said the House panel had been seeking to question Navarro about efforts to delay Congress’ certification of the 2020 election, a plan Navarro dubbed the “Green Bay Sweep” in his book, “In Trump Time.”
Navarro unsuccessfully argued that former President Donald Trump had asserted executive privilege over his testimony and document production.
“For the first time in our nation’s history, a senior presidential advisor has been convicted of contempt of Congress after asserting executive privilege over a congressional subpoena,” Woodward’s filing said. “Dr. Navarro has appealed and will raise a number of issues on appeal that he contends are likely to result in the reversal of his conviction, or a new trial.”
Navarro would become the first former Trump adviser to report to prison for actions related to the Jan. 6 attack.
(WASHINGTON) — Former Vice President Mike Pence said Friday he will not be endorsing his former boss Donald Trump in the 2024 general election.
Appearing on Fox News, Pence said he “cannot in good conscience” back Trump as there are “profound differences” between their views on various issues.
Pence, who unsuccessfully ran for the Republican nomination, declined to reveal who he plans to vote for in November but he said he would “never” vote for President Joe Biden.
“It should come as no surprise that I will not be endorsing Donald Trump this year,” Pence said after being asked by Fox News host Martha MacCallum.
Pence slammed Trump for pursuing an agenda that is “at odds with the conservative agenda” the two abided by during their administration.
“Look, I’m incredibly proud of the record of our administration,” Pence said. “It was a conservative record that made America more prosperous, more secure and saw conservatives appointed to our courts in a more peaceful world.”
“That being said, during my presidential campaign, I made it clear there were profound differences between me and President Trump on a range of issues, not just our difference on my constitutional duties that I exercised on Jan. 6,” Pence said.
Pence said Trump’s stance on the national deficit, his position on abortion and most recently his reversal on the TikTok ban are among his reasons for not endorsing his former running mate, in addition to what unfolded on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump’s pressure on Pence to reject the 2020 election results (which Pence said endangered his family’s life on Jan. 6) prompted a rift in their relationship, and prompted Pence to argue on the campaign trial that his efforts to overturn his election loss should be disqualifying.
Asked who he plans to vote for in the general election, Pence said, “Like most Americans, I’m going to keep my vote to myself.”
“I would never vote for Joe Biden,” Pence said when asked if he would vote for Biden. “How I vote when that curtain closes, that will be for me.”
The former vice president dodged the question of whether he’s looking to support a third-party candidate.
“What I can tell you is that where I’m going to spend any energy is on making sure that my fellow Republicans, independents and many Democrats around the country know that it is a commitment to a limited government in the Constitution, a commitment to a strong defense and American leadership in the world, a commitment to traditional values,” he said.
Pence also dismissed any possibility of his running as a third-party candidate.
Pence acknowledged the fact that Republican primary voters have made their choice clear, and said he plans to spend the rest of the year pushing for “what we should be for.”
“Republican primary voters have made it clear, Martha, who they’re for in this election,” Pence said. “What I’m going to spend the rest of the year is talking about what we should be for – the broad mainstream conservative agenda that has defined our party and always made America strong and prosperous and free.”
After Pence suspended his campaign in October last year, Trump urged his former running mate to endorse him, saying he “made him vice president” and that he “had a successful presidency.”
Trump also complained about “disloyalty” in politics, a topic Trump had frequently mentioned earlier this election cycle while attacking former 2024 rivals like Floria Gov. Ron DeSantis and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.
(NEW YORK) — The judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s New York hush money case has delayed the start of the trial from its original March 25 start date, due to discovery issues raised by the defense.
“Trial on this matter is adjourned for 30 days from the date of this letter,” Judge Juan Merchan wrote Friday, which would push the new trial date to mid-April.
The judge scheduled a hearing for March 25 to address the discovery concerns.
Lawyers for Trump were seeking to delay the start of the trial in order to allow them to review tens of thousands of pages of potential evidence recently disclosed by the Justice Department.
Merchan, in his ruling Friday, said “there are significant questions of fact” he must resolve before he decides whether the Manhattan district attorney flouted its obligations to disclose potential evidence, as alleged by the defense
On Thursday, the Manhattan district attorney’s office proposed a delay of up to 30 days to give the parties time to review newly disclosed material related to former Trump attorney Michael Cohen.
Trump’s attorneys were seeking an even longer delay.
“[T]hirty days is not sufficient given the volume of recently produced materials and the nature of the ongoing disputes,” Trump attorney Todd Blanche said in a letter to Judge Merchan. “Therefore, we respectfully request that the Court schedule a hearing on the pending discovery motion and the scheduling of a trial date, should one be necessary, at a time that is convenient to Your Honor during the week of March 25.”
Trump last April pleaded not guilty to a 34-count indictment charging him with falsifying business records in connection with a hush money payment that Cohen made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels just days before the 2016 presidential election.
In seeking the delay, the defense also repeated its insistence that the indictment must be dismissed.
“The People’s consent to an adjournment of the trial is a necessary step towards a just resolution of these proceedings, but the Court must not permit that request to obscure the need to dismiss the Indictment as a whole, or at the very least, for inquiry and fact-finding into the circumstances that put Your Honor and President Trump in this position based on ongoing discovery violations,” the defense said
Jury selection for the trial is currently scheduled to get underway March 25 in New York City. The former president has denied all wrongdoing.
(WASHINGTON) — In the week since Michael Whatley and Lara Trump took control of the Republican National Committee, significant moves have been made to reshape the organization in Donald Trump’s image.
That includes a renewed focus on “election integrity” — a chief priority for the presumptive GOP nominee, who continues to lie about the 2020 election, as he gears up for what’s expected to be a tight 2024 rematch against President Joe Biden.
To help spearhead the effort, the RNC has brought on Christina Bobb, a former One America News Network reporter-turned-Trump attorney who also espoused unfounded claims of election fraud in the last presidential cycle.
Lara Trump, the former president’s daughter-in-law, announced earlier this week the creation of a “first-ever” election integrity division at the RNC.
“That means massive resources going to this one thing,” she said during a “Hannity” appearance on Fox News. “If people out there, Sean, don’t feel like their vote counts, they don’t trust the system we have, then we are no longer the country we once thought we were … We have to fight fire with dynamite.”
Days later, in a three-page memo circulated to RNC members, Whatley expanded on the party’s buildout of their election integrity program. It will include, he said, expanded efforts on early voting, “ballot harvesting where legal” and absentee and mail-in ballot programs.
Whatley also dispelled reports that previous chairwoman Ronna McDaniel’s mail-in voting program “Bank Your Vote” was scrapped but announced the addition of another initiative called “Grow the Vote” aimed at reaching nontraditional GOP voters and voters who don’t always go to the polls.
“We must build and activate the most effective election integrity program that has ever existed to safeguard our elections. We must also focus on voter turnout and early voting in order to win. Every tool that the other side has used, we need to wield for ourselves,” Whatley wrote in the memo, which was obtained by ABC News.
The organization, as part of its staff shakeup, has made key legal hires to lead these initiatives.
Bobb will serve as senior counsel for election integrity. She was previously involved with Trump’s 2020 election subversion case and his classified documents case.
Bobb was the attorney that signed off to the Department of Justice that no remaining documents with classified markings were in Trump’s possession. That certification was later discovered to be false, prompting the eventual court-authorized search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in which FBI investigators recovered more than 100 classified documents.
“I’m honored to be a part of the new team at the RNC,” Bobb wrote on X.
Another new hire is longtime GOP lawyer Charlie Spies, who will be installed as chief counsel at the RNC. Spies previously worked as election law counsel to the RNC, along with acting as counsel and an architect of former GOP presidential candidate Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ 2024 presidential campaign.
Unlike Bobb, Spies distanced himself from Trump following the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and has rejected election denialism. The Washington Post was first to report the news of the hirings.
Bill McGinley, a longtime election attorney who served in the Trump administration as White House Cabinet secretary, will be taking the role of outside counsel for election integrity.
In a sign of the RNC’s more aggressive posture regarding voting and elections ahead of November, Whatley (who is reported to have been elevated to the chair position because of his prioritization of this issue) also announced one of his first moves of his tenure will be suing Michigan’s secretary of state over voter roll maintenance.
The party claims that Michigan is not properly maintaining its voter registration lists as required by federal law.
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, said on CNN she was not surprised by the RNC’s lawsuit because of Michigan’s prominence ahead of the 2024 election but expects to “see many baseless accusations that seek to diminish their faith in the security of our elections as a result.”
Biden beat Trump there by nearly 3 percentage points in 2020, flipping the state from red to blue. A new Quinnipiac University poll found a head-to-head matchup between the two men among self-identified registered voters in the state is too close to call.
According to the poll, 70% of the registered voters were either very confident (44%) or somewhat confident (26%) in the state of Michigan counting their votes accurately in the 2024 presidential election. Thirteen percent said they were not so confident, while 16% said they were not confident at all.
Benson wrote on social media that “Michigan welcomes the spotlight, and we are ready for our close up! Because our elections are secure, and our citizens can have faith that every valid vote and only valid votes will count.”
(NEW YORK) — Lawyers for former President Donald Trump are seeking to delay the start of his New York hush money trial in order to allow them to review tens of thousands of pages of potential evidence recently disclosed by the Justice Department.
“[T]hirty days is not sufficient given the volume of recently produced materials and the nature of the ongoing disputes,” Trump attorney Todd Blanche said in a letter to Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the case. “Therefore, we respectfully request that the Court schedule a hearing on the pending discovery motion and the scheduling of a trial date, should one be necessary, at a time that is convenient to Your Honor during the week of March 25.”
Trump last April pleaded not guilty to a 34-count indictment charging him with falsifying business records in connection with a hush money payment his then-attorney Michael Cohen made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels just days before the 2016 presidential election.
On Thursday, the Manhattan district attorney’s office proposed a delay of up to 30 days to give the parties time to review newly disclosed material related to Cohen.
In seeking the delay, the defense also repeated its insistence that the indictment must be dismissed.
“The People’s consent to an adjournment of the trial is a necessary step towards a just resolution of these proceedings, but the Court must not permit that request to obscure the need to dismiss the Indictment as a whole, or at the very least, for inquiry and fact-finding into the circumstances that put Your Honor and President Trump in this position based on ongoing discovery violations,” the defense said
Jury selection for the trial is currently scheduled to get underway March 25 in New York City. The former president has denied all wrongdoing.
(WASHINGTON) — Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar was direct with President Joe Biden on Friday that discussing Gaza and the need for a ceasefire was high on his list for their Oval Office meeting.
“You’ll know my view that we need to have a cease-fire as soon as possible to get food and medicine in,” Varadkar told Biden, who interjected to say that he agreed.
The Irish prime minister continued that a cease-fire is necessary “to get hostages out. And we need to talk about how we can make that happen and move towards a two-state solution which I think is the only way we’ll have lasting peace and security.”
Varadkar has repeatedly called for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza, often citing Ireland’s own history with imperialism and occupation. His position goes further than that of Biden, who has backed a six-week, temporary cease-fire to free hostages and ease the humanitarian crisis for Palestinian civilians.
Biden, who spoke before the Taoiseach, also mentioned Gaza in his own remarks. Biden noted the the countries are working together to increase aid to Gaza, but added, “We both know there’s a whole lot more that has to be done.”
The U.S. president, donning a green tie, also emphasized that both countries were “standing together” to support Ukraine. Varadkar said that he appreciated America’s “leadership” on Ukraine, but also urged for continued aid as a $60 billion package remains stalled in the House. The Taoiseach said that he would take the opportunity to tell lawmakers that in his luncheon on Capitol Hill.
The tone of the Oval Office meeting was in contrast to the traditionally light-hearted exchanges in the past where Biden touted his long and proud Irish roots. Still, Biden (who donned a shamrock tie ahead of St. Patrick’s Day) took a moment to quote his Irish grandfather.
“My grandfather Finnegan used to say, “May the hinge of our friendship never go rusty,'” Biden said. “He had all these sayings, you know, the Irish in America sometimes think they’re more Irish than the Irish, but the- — and I don’t think we’re gonna let it go rusty.”
Earlier Friday, Vice President Kamala Harris and second gentleman Doug Emhoff continued the tradition of hosting Varadkar and his spouse Matthew Barrett at the residence for breakfast ahead of Sunday’s holiday to celebrate 100 years of diplomatic relationships.
In particular, Harris commended Varadkar for his work in office on Ukraine and Gaza, praising Ireland for being “a leader in providing food, water and medicine to the people of Gaza.”
Varadkar returned the praise for Harris on Gaza and her “great courage and leadership in recent weeks,” when she spoke “publicly in favor of a cease-fire in Gaza.”
Harris called for an immediate, temporary cease-fire earlier this month when she spoke on the 59th commemoration of “Bloody Sunday” in Selma, Alabama. It was some of the administration’s most forceful public remarks on the matter at the time, as she cited the “immense scale of suffering” in Gaza.
Harris and Varadkar also exchanged praise for their work with the LGBTQ community, with Harris noting Varadkar’s unique role as an openly LGBTQ leaders on the world stage.
“To see you and Mr. Barrett on the world stage is important for so many reasons, as our long march for progress continues on,” Harris said.
Varadkar praised President Biden for his backing of same-sex marriage back in 2012, saying he remembered that infamous “Meet the Press” interview well when Biden preempted then-President Barack Obama in announcing his support.
Despite tensions on Israel and Gaza looming over Varadkar’s trip, the event at the residence had a good dose of humor. Harris joked off the top of her remarks that after their visit last year, she and Emhoff decided that the Taoiseach and Barrett would be their “new couple friends,” drawing a big laugh from the room.
Varadkar also noted how difficult it can be to fill the number two role in government, joking that after serving as both deputy prime Minister and prime minister, “I’m not going to lie, I know which one I prefer.”
ABC News’ Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Friday laid out a new test for determining when actions taken by government employees on social media — such as posting messages, deleting comments or blocking users — constitute official business verses personal conduct.
The distinction has become critical as millions of local, state and federal government workers increasingly use social media to communicate with the public, often on “mixed use” accounts that also include purely private, non-official content.
“When a government official posts about job-related topics on social media, it can be difficult to tell whether the speech is official or private,” wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a unanimous opinion in the case Lindke v. Freed. “We hold that such speech is attributable to the state only if the official (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the state’s behalf, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when he spoke on social media.”
In short, Barrett explained, the distinction turns on “substance, not labels.”
The First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech, generally prohibits government employees from censoring public comments or blocking access to a social media account that offers official communications.
At the same time, government employees also retain First Amendment rights as private citizens, including the ability to maintain a personal social media page and to manage its content and access.
“Private parties can act with the authority of the state, and state officials have private lives and their own constitutional rights,” Barrett wrote. “Categorizing conduct, therefore, can require a close look.”
The court’s announcement of a new test came in a case involving a Michigan man – Kevin Lindke – who sued Port Huron City Manager James Freed after comments Lindke posted to Freed’s Facebook page were deleted and his access to the page was blocked entirely.
Lindke had criticized Freed’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Freed insisted the Facebook account was personal and that COVID-related postings were not part of his official duties. Both men have insisted the First Amendment is on his side.
The decision Friday sends the case back to a federal appeals court for a second look.
“I am very pleased with the outcome the justices came to,” Freed told ABC News in a statement. “The Court rejected the plaintiff’s appearance test and further refined a test for review by the Sixth Circuit [U.S. Court of Appeals]. We are extremely confident we will prevail there once more.”
Lindke told ABC News he is also “ecstatic.”
“A 9-0 decision is very decisive and is a clear indicator that public officials cannot hide behind personal social media accounts when discussing official business,” he said.
In recent years, there has been a growing number of disputes involving public officials allegedly silencing or censoring their critics online.
One of the most high-profile examples was a 2017 suit brought by a group of Twitter users who had been blocked by Donald Trump after criticizing his presidency. It reached the Supreme Court but was dismissed because Trump had left office.
The justices on Friday also addressed a similar case from California – O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier — involving a group of parents who had sued two school board members for blocking their criticism on social media. In an unsigned, per curiam opinion, the court returned the case to a lower court for further review in light of the new test.
Barrett’s opinion in the Lindke case offers lower courts refined guidelines for resolving social media disputes in the future.
“A defendant like Freed must have actual authority rooted in written law or longstanding custom to speak for the state. That authority must extend to speech of the sort that caused the alleged rights deprivation,” Barrett wrote. “If the plaintiff cannot make this threshold showing of authority, he cannot establish state action.”
