On Friday, the Supreme Court made a ruling that permits public officials to block individuals on social media in specific cases. Challenges against Michigan and California officials who blocked critics on Facebook were dismissed.

In a unanimous decision led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court established a more clear guideline for determining when public officials are state actors online and when they can have control over their social media presence.

A second opinion dealing with a related dispute was unsigned, and there were no noted dissents, said CNN.

As politicians use social media to reach voters, these cases question whether their pages are private or part of the government. Some of the profiles included public information alongside personal 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," Barrett wrote. 

The Supreme Court faced a similar issue when former President Donald Trump blocked several followers on X, the social media platform formerly called Twitter. A federal appeals court in New York ruled against Trump. 

However, by the time the case reached the Supreme Court, he had left office, prompting the justices to dismiss the dispute as moot. 

According to the Supreme Court's decision, speech by government officials can be considered state speech and is subject to First Amendment scrutiny only if the individual has the authority to represent the state and is exercising that authority on social media platforms. 

The standard set by the court Friday applies to all government officials. 

"Today's ruling splits the difference between two fairly extreme poles," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. 

"As opposed to a rule that public officials are always state actors on social media, or are never, the court is clarifying the specific circumstances in which, even through a personal account, a public official is still constrained by the First Amendment in how they interact with their constituents. The lower courts will now have to apply this new test - so we'll see how it operates on the ground. But splitting the difference in theory helps to explain why the court was unanimous."