Former Alaska State Senator Reinbold Triumphs in Supreme Court Ruling
Contributed by Lora Reinbold’s Legal Team
In a notable decision, the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled in favor of former State Senator Lora Reinbold, is a significant win for Reinbold. In the high-profile social media case McDow v. Reinbold, the High Court's acceptance of Reinbold’s “Petition for Review” marks a rare instance of the judiciary, ruling in favor of a self-represented petitioner, in a complex legal matter.
The case has garnered considerable attention that is centered around Reinbold's management of a Facebook page during her tenure as a state senator. The controversy began when Bobbie McDow filed a lawsuit, the day after she was blocked from commenting on Reinbold’s page. She alleged that her First Amendment rights were violated. Reinbold said she believed McDow was a troll, that repeatedly violated the page rules. The page rules stated: “be respectful of those posting/commenting, or your comments may not be up for long. No trollers, profanity, cruelty, or bullying.” McDow was unblocked within 24 hours. Legislators are not requirement to participate in social media. Reinbold stated her Facebook page was operated voluntarily and was following the legislative social media guidelines and Facebooks’ community standards.
In December 2022, Judge Matthews ruled that Reinbold had “reasonable viewpoint neutral (manner) restrictions on her Facebook page” and deemed it as a “limited public forum.” The judge stated Reinbold was “state actor” under the “color of law,” and was part of the State, acting in her capacity as a Senator, while operating the Facebook page. The judge’s ruling gave McDow legal standing, propelling the case to trial. However, the state has repeatedly declined to defend Reinbold. The case reflects the complex interplay between social media decorum and free speech rights. Reinbold defended her actions citing the Federal Communication Decency Act, Good Samaritan provision, which allow internet users to remove content they find “objectionable” or “harassing.”
In October of 2023, Judge Matthews ordered Reinbold to sign a records release with Meta/Facebook. Reinbold appealed this order. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled in favor of Reinbold and vacated Judge Matthews' controversial discovery order. The High Court barred further discovery, until the issue of Reinbold's immunity was resolved.
The recent Supreme Court's ruling placed a significant burden on McDow's legal team, the Northern Justice Project, to prove that the constitutional right allegedly violated was “clearly established.” Should they fail to establish this, Reinbold would be entitled to “qualified immunity,” protecting her from damages.
The 9th Circuit Appeals Court has previously ruled that a First Amendment right, in this context, are not clearly established. Additionally, the 6th and 8th circuit courts have ruled there was no “state action” when an official operated their social media page. The United States Supreme Court is expected to hear cases on 'state action' and social media this spring, potentially setting new precedents in this evolving legal landscape.
Reinbold, who has spent over $100,000 in legal fees and countless hours defending herself. She expressed gratitude for the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling, stating it brought "much-needed relief after a nearly three-year legal battle.” This lawsuit was a primary factor in her decision not to seek re-election to the state senate.
This case is part of a trend, bringing legal action against conservative lawmakers, by the Northern Justice Project, including cases against Representative Eastman, McCabe, Senator Micciche, and Matsu School board members.
The Alaska Supreme Court's decision remanded the McDow v. Reinbold case back to the Superior Court for further proceedings on Reinbold's motion to dismiss. The trial, initially set for January 2024, has been postponed to March 2024, and may face further delays due to the Alaska Supreme Court's orders.