So the headline here is kind of wrong. The question isn't whether or not a government account can block people on social media--it's pretty well conceded that's

So the headline here is kind of wrong. The question isn't whether or not a government account can block people on social media--it's pretty well conceded that's a First Amendment violation, although there's no direct SCOTUS precedent on the matter. The actual question is when is an account a government account. Note the specific questions in the cases at issue: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/oconnor-ratcliff-v-garnier/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/oconnor-ratcliff... > Whether a public official engages in state action subject to the First Amendment by blocking an individual from the official’s personal social media account, when the official uses the account to feature their job and communicate about job-related matters with the public, but does not do so pursuant to any governmental authority or duty. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lindke-v-freed/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lindke-v-freed/ > Whether a public official’s social media activity can constitute state action only if the official used the account to perform a governmental duty or under the authority of his or her office. (While SCOTUSblog color-codes all of the filings depending on if they're for the respondents or for the petitioners, it's a little messed up here since some organizations filed one amicus brief for both cases, and the nature of petitioner and respondent are different in the two cases). It'll be interesting to see what test SCOTUS comes up with in this oral argument; it's not an easy as you might think to draw a clear line between personal account of an elected official and an account with official government imprimatur.