International
Supreme Court unanimously rules that public officials can be sued for blocking critics on social media

From LifeSiteNews
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett Justice noted that the personal social media accounts of public officials often present an ‘ambiguous’ status because they mix official announcements with personal content.
The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Friday that government officials who post about work-related topics on their personal social media accounts can be held liable for violating the First Amendment rights of constituents by blocking their access or deleting their critical comments.
In a 15-page opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted that the personal social media accounts of public officials often present an “ambiguous” status because they mix official announcements with personal content.
The court ruled in two cases where people were blocked after leaving critical comments on social media accounts of public officials.
The first case involved two elected members of a California school board — the Poway Unified School District Board of Trustees — who blocked concerned parents from their Facebook and Twitter accounts after leaving critical comments.
The court upheld the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that said the board members had violated the parents’ free speech rights.
The second case before the court concerned James Freed, Port Huron, Michigan’s city manager who had blocked constituent Kevin Lindke from commenting on his Facebook page after deleting his remarks about the city’s COVID-19 pandemic policies.
Lindke believed that Freed had violated the First Amendment by doing so and sued Freed.
Freed maintained that he launched his Facebook page long before becoming a public official, arguing that most of the content on his account concerned family-related matters.
Justice Barrett explained:
Like millions of Americans, James Freed maintained a Facebook account on which he posted about a wide range of topics, including his family and his job. Like most of those Americans, Freed occasionally received unwelcome comments on his posts. In response, Freed took a step familiar to Facebook users: He deleted the comments and blocked those who made them.
For most people with a Facebook account, that would have been the end of it. But Kevin Lindke, one of the unwelcome commenters, sued Freed for violating his right to free speech. Because the First Amendment binds only the government, this claim is a nonstarter if Freed posted as a private citizen. Freed, however, is not only a private citizen but also the city manager of Port Huron, Michigan — and while Freed insists that his Facebook account was strictly personal, Lindke argues that Freed acted in his official capacity when he silenced Lindke’s speech.
Barrett concluded:
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. 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 the end, the high court sent Lindke’s case back to the Sixth Circuit Federal Appeals Court for a second look.
Perhaps reflecting continued ambiguity following the court’s ruling, both defendant Freed and plaintiff Lindke declared victory.
“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. We are extremely confident we will prevail there once more.”
Lindke was more effusive and told ABC News that he was “ecstatic” with the court’s decision.
“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,” said Lindke.
Legal experts called attention to the persistence of gray area in the law regarding social media due to the narrowness of the court’s decision.
“This case doesn’t tell us much new about how to understand the liability of the 20 million people who work in local, state, administrative or federal government in the U.S. … just that the question is complicated,” Kate Klonick, an expert on online-platform regulation who teaches at St. John’s Law School, told The Washington Post.
Katie Fallow, senior counsel for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, told the Post that the court’s ruling does not sufficiently address public officials’ widespread use of personal “shadow accounts,” which constituents often perceive as official.
Fallow said the court was “right to hold that public officials can’t immunize themselves from First Amendment liability merely by using their personal accounts to conduct official business.”
We are disappointed, though, that the Court did not adopt the more practical test used by the majority of the courts of appeals, which appropriately balanced the free speech interests of public officials with those of the people who want to speak to them on their social media accounts.
According to The Hill, the Biden administration and a bipartisan group of 17 states and National Republican Senatorial Committee sided with officials, arguing in favor of their blocks, while the ACLU backed the cons
Friday’s ruling is only the first of several this term that deal with the relationship between government and social media.
“On Feb. 26, the justices heard argument[s] in a pair of challenges to controversial laws in Florida and Texas that seek to regulate large social-media companies,” explained Amy Howe on Scotusblog.com. “And on Monday the justices will hear oral arguments in a dispute alleging that the federal government violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media companies to remove false or misleading content. Decisions in those cases are expected by summer.”
Business
Canada may escape the worst as Trump declares America’s economic independence with Liberation Day tariffs

MxM News
Quick Hit:
On Wednesday, President Trump declared a national emergency to implement a sweeping 10% baseline tariff on all imported goods, calling it a “Declaration of Economic Independence.” Trump said the tariffs would revitalize the domestic economy, declaring that, “April 2, 2025, will forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn.”
Key Details:
-
The baseline 10% tariff will take effect Saturday, while targeted “reciprocal” tariffs—20% on the EU, 24% on Japan, and 17% on Israel—begin April 9th. Trump also imposed 25% tariffs on most Canadian and Mexican goods, as well as on all foreign-made cars and auto parts, effective early Thursday.
-
Trump justified the policy by citing foreign trade restrictions and long-standing deficits. He pointed to policies in Australia, the EU, Japan, and South Korea as examples of protectionist barriers that unfairly harm American workers and industries.
-
The White House estimates the 10% tariff could generate $200 billion in revenue over the next decade. Officials say the added funds would help reduce the federal deficit while giving the U.S. stronger leverage in negotiations with countries running large trade surpluses.
Diving Deeper:
President Trump on Wednesday unveiled a broad new tariff policy affecting every imported product into the United States, marking what he described as the beginning of a new economic era. Declaring a national emergency from the White House Rose Garden, the president announced a new 10% baseline tariff on all imports, alongside steeper country-specific tariffs targeting longstanding trade imbalances.
“This is our Declaration of Economic Independence,” Trump said. “Factories will come roaring back into our country — and you see it happening already.”
The tariffs, which take effect Saturday, represent a substantial increase from the pre-Trump average U.S. tariff rate and are part of what the administration is calling “Liberation Day” for American industry. Reciprocal tariffs kick in April 9th, with the administration detailing specific rates—20% for the European Union, 24% for Japan, and 17% for Israel—based on calculations tied to bilateral trade deficits.
“From 1789 to 1913, we were a tariff-backed nation,” Trump said. “The United States was proportionately the wealthiest it has ever been.” He criticized the establishment of the income tax in 1913 and blamed the 1929 economic collapse on a departure from tariff-based policies.
To underscore the move’s long-anticipated nature, Trump noted he had been warning about unfair trade for decades. “If you look at my old speeches, where I was young and very handsome… I’d be talking about how we were being ripped off by these countries,” he quipped.
The president also used the moment to renew his push for broader economic reforms, urging Congress to eliminate federal taxes on tips, overtime pay, and Social Security benefits. He also proposed allowing Americans to write off interest on domestic auto loans.
Critics of the plan warned it could raise prices for consumers, noting inflation has already risen 22% under the Biden administration. However, Trump pointed to low inflation during his first term—when he imposed more targeted tariffs—as proof his strategy can work without sparking runaway costs.
White House officials reportedly described the new baseline rate as a guardrail against countries attempting to game the system. One official explained the methodology behind the reciprocal tariffs: “The trade deficit that we have with any given country is the sum of all trade practices, the sum of all cheating,” adding that the tariffs are “half of what they could be” because “the president is lenient and he wants to be kind to the world.”
In addition to Wednesday’s sweeping changes, Trump’s administration recently imposed a 25% tariff on Chinese goods tied to fentanyl smuggling and another 25% on steel and aluminum imports—revoking previous carve-outs for countries like Brazil and South Korea. Future tariffs on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and raw materials such as copper and lumber are reportedly under consideration.
Trump closed his remarks with a message to foreign leaders: “To all of the foreign presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, ambassadors… I say, ‘Terminate your own tariffs, drop your barriers.’” He declared April 2nd “the day America’s destiny was reclaimed” and promised, “This will indeed be the golden age of America.”
2025 Federal Election
‘I’m Cautiously Optimistic’: Doug Ford Strongly Recommends Canada ‘Not To Retaliate’ Against Trump’s Tariffs

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Jason Cohen
Ontario Premier Doug Ford urged Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to avoid retaliation against the tariffs President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday.
Trump announced in the White House Rose Garden that he would impose “a minimum baseline tariff of 10%” on all goods entering the United States, with Canada not being included on the list of countries with higher rates. When asked about what Canada’s response would be on “Bloomberg: Balance of Power,” Ford said he was “cautiously optimistic” about Canada’s omission from the higher-tier tariffs and emphasized the importance of a cooperative relationship with the U.S.
WATCH:
“Well, let’s see where these tariffs go. I’m cautiously optimistic that I never saw Canada or Mexico on that list. And it just goes to show you two great countries working together, collaborating together and building relationships,” Ford said. “So again, I’m cautiously optimistic. I think if that’s the case, it’s the right thing for both the U.S and Canada.”
Host Kailey Leinz noted that there are currently tariffs on Canada in place as well as an exemption for goods that are in compliance with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
“Does that mean, sir, at least in your mind, that it wouldn’t be appropriate for Canada to retaliate for this at this time?” Leinz asked.
“That is correct. If that’s the case, then I would highly recommend to the prime minister not to retaliate. And let’s carry on a strong relationship,” Ford answered. “Let’s build the American-Canadian fortress around both countries and be the wealthiest, most prosperous, safest two countries in the world.”
Trump declared a national emergency to levy a slew of reciprocal tariffs on what he has deemed “Liberation Day.”
“My fellow Americans, this is Liberation Day, April 2, 2025, will forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America’s destiny was reclaimed, and the day that we began to make America wealthy again,” Trump said.
The president also announced that he would proceed with implementing a 25% tariff on “all foreign-made automobiles” that will take effect at midnight.
Ford in March had imposed a 25% surcharge on electricity to New York, Michigan and Minnesota, but promptly rescinded the policy and apologized to Americans on WABC’s “Cats & Cosby” radio show the following day. The tariffs were a retaliatory measure against Trump’s flurry of tariffs against Canada since starting his second term.
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Biden Administration Was Secretly More Involved In Ukraine Than It Let On, Investigation Reveals
-
Business2 days ago
Trump says ‘nicer,’ ‘kinder’ tariffs will generate federal revenue
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
PM Carney’s Candidate Paul Chiang Steps Down After RCMP Confirms Probe Into “Bounty” Comments
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Poilievre, Conservatives receive election endorsement from large Canadian trade union
-
Business2 days ago
Biden’s Greenhouse Gas ‘Greendoggle’ Slush Fund Is Unraveling
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
RCMP Confirms It Is ‘Looking Into’ Alleged Foreign Threat Following Liberal Candidate Paul Chiang Comments
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Liberal MP Paul Chiang Resigns Without Naming the Real Threat—The CCP
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Fight against carbon taxes not over yet