4 LINDKE v. FREED Opinion of the Court expensive restaurant “instead of out talking to the community.” Initially, Freed deleted Lindke’s comments; ultimately, he blocked him. Once blocked, Lindke could see Freed’s posts but could no longer comment on them. B Lindke sued Freed under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging that Freed had violated his First Amendment rights. As Lindke saw it, he had the right to comment on Freed’s Facebook page, which he characterized as a public forum. Freed, Lindke claimed, had engaged in impermissible viewpoint discrimination by deleting unfavorable comments and blocking the people who made them. The District Court granted summary judgment to Freed. Because only state action can give rise to liability under §1983, Lindke’s claim depended on whether Freed acted in a “private” or “public” capacity. 563 F. Supp. 3d 704, 714 (ED Mich. 2021). The “prevailing personal quality of Freed’s post[s],” the absence of “government involvement” with his account, and the lack of posts conducting official business led the court to conclude that Freed managed his Facebook page in his private capacity, so Lindke’s claim failed. Ibid. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. It noted that “the caselaw is murky as to when a state official acts personally and when he acts officially” for purposes of §1983. 37 F. 4th 1199, 1202 (2022). To sort the personal from the official, that court “asks whether the official is ‘performing an actual or apparent duty of his office,’ or if he could not have behaved as he did ‘without the authority of his office.’ ” Id., at 1203 (quoting Waters v. Morristown, 242 F. 3d 353, 359 (CA6 2001)). Applying this precedent to the social-media context, the Sixth Circuit held that an official’s activity is state action if the “text of state law requires an officeholder to maintain a social-media account,” the official “use[s] . . . state resources” or “government staff ” to run the account, or the