Tennessee lawmaker Jeremy Faison, a prominent Republican figure and chairman of the state House GOP Caucus, has emerged at the center of a court case with broader implications for how public officials use social media and what rights their constituents have when they engage online.
Faison operates a Facebook page that blends political messaging with personal content.
That blend became a legal flashpoint when a man named Fox, who doesn’t live in Faison’s district, posted comments that were subsequently deleted.
After being blocked from the page, Fox filed a lawsuit, arguing that Faison had violated his constitutional rights.
The court didn’t see it that way.
Citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Lindke v. Freed, the judge determined that Faison was not acting in an official state capacity even when using the page to perform functions associated with his role as a legislator.
We obtained the opinion for you here.
Because individual lawmakers cannot, by law, speak on behalf of the state, the court said Faison’s moderation of comments wasn’t subject to First Amendment constraints.
Faison’s Facebook presence dates back to 2008, when he set up a personal profile. A separate page, launched in 2015 and renamed in 2019 to “State Representative Jeremy Faison,” now serves as a hybrid platform for political posts, personal anecdotes, and constituent outreach.
According to court records, Faison maintains full control over the page, using a personal email login.
No state resources are involved in its operation, and no state official other than Faison or consultants paid with campaign funds has posted there.
“The court concludes that it must take Lindke literally,” the ruling states. It goes on to say that Faison has no independent authority to issue statements on behalf of the Tennessee government. That holds true, the court explained, even if he is fulfilling core responsibilities of his office like engaging with voters, promoting legislation, or holding town halls.
The outcome sharply narrows the kind of speech that can be considered official in the context of digital communication.
Essentially, even if a legislator uses a page to carry out what looks like government work, they are not speaking for the state unless they have been explicitly authorized to do so.
Since state lawmakers act collectively when creating laws, no single member can be said to represent the state’s voice.
That legal nuance has practical consequences. Under this ruling, Faison and others in similar positions can host online discussions focused entirely on government issues yet retain full authority to remove unfavorable comments or bar individuals from participating without triggering any constitutional review.
Supporters of this legal framework might argue that it gives politicians the tools to manage abusive or irrelevant discourse.
Others see it as providing a loophole for officials to present one-sided narratives while shielding themselves from pushback, even when they are using their position to promote policies or provide services funded by taxpayer dollars.
