https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/oconnor-ratcliff-v-garnier/

Question Presented: 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.

Resolves YES if affirmed, NO if reversed (but see below).

In case of remand to apply a new rule, will resolve according to the final lower court (or SCOTUS in the event of a return trip) desicion.
On a more rare disposition this will resolve according to how the issue of whether (any of) the blocks were illegal in this particular case is decided. In particular YES for dismissed as improvidently granted (leaving the decision below in tact), N/A for Munsingwear vacature, and either N/A or NO for a reversal on lack of jusrisdiction or standing (there may be a slightly subjective judgement in this type of ruling, for instance reversal on standing on a technicality and leaves the issue wide open for a future decision resolves N/A, but a ruling on standing that mostly rules out similar cases in the future is basically a roundabout way of deciding the issue presented by the case so it resolves NO).

• Update 2026-01-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision and the 9th Circuit has re-affirmed the trial court on remand. The market will now be resolved based on this final decision.

Decision on remand: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/05/14/21-55118.pdf