State Supreme Court hears case from voter blocked from lawmaker’s Facebook page

A Park River man who says a state senator violated his First Amendment rights by blocking him on Facebook has taken his claim all the way to the North Dakota Supreme Court.

In a May 2023 complaint filed in Walsh County, Mitchell Sanderson accused Sen. Janne Myrdal, R-Edinburg, of unlawfully barring him from commenting on her Facebook page because she disagreed with his political beliefs.

“No senator should be blocking people for different points of view,” Sanderson, who is representing himself in the case, said in a Zoom hearing before the North Dakota Supreme Court on Monday. Sanderson, who lives in Myrdal’s district, said that in doing so, the senator  denied him from participating in a public forum.

Sanderson in his May 2023 complaint requested $100,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. He also asked that Myrdal be ordered to unblock him on her Facebook page.

Myrdal said in court records she blocked Sanderson because he made what she considered “injurious comments” on her page.

Myrdal’s attorney, Howard Swanson, said Myrdal did not violate Sanderson’s constitutional rights because her Facebook page isn’t an official government publication.

“This Facebook page was created before she was ever elected to office at all,” Swanson said. “She is the sole administrator. There are no state employees involved. There are no state financial funds involved. There’s no state management or control.”

The state of North Dakota in August 2023 joined as an intervenor in the case. In court filings, the state also asserted that Myrdal’s Facebook page was a private social media page, but that even if Myrdal had acted on behalf of the state, her actions would be protected under qualified immunity.

Northeast Judicial District Judge Kari Agotness in December threw out the case, agreeing that Myrdal had acted as a private citizen, not as a senator, and therefore Sanderson had no grounds to sue.

Sanderson appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court in March.

While free speech was the foundation of Sanderson’s case, he appeared to distance himself from that claim during Monday’s oral arguments. He even acknowledged that recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings — which held that public officials can block citizens on social media under certain circumstances — favored Myrdal.

Instead, he used his time before the court to accuse Myrdal, Agotness and the North Dakota Attorney General’s Office and others of fixing the district court case in Myrdal’s favor.

“This case started out as the First Amendment case, which is not part of the appeal due to this year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on governmental actors blocking citizens on social media,” Sanderson told the justices. “The crimes and abuses that took place are why we are here today.”

He asked the state Supreme Court to dismiss the case without prejudice, which would allow him to refile his case in the future. Sanderson also said the court should overturn Agotness’ order requiring him to pay Myrdal’s attorneys fees. 

Swanson called the criminal allegations baseless and absurd. Sanderson has not presented evidence backing up these claims, he added.

“The only claim that was asserted in Mr. Sanderson’s complaint is a First Amendment violation, and if he is now abandoning that appeal, there’s nothing before this court to rule upon,” Swanson argued.

Justice Lisa Fair McEvers questioned why Sanderson thought the hearing was the appropriate place to accuse Myrdal and others of criminal behavior.

“Mr. Sanderson, the proper place to take those allegations would be to the State’s Attorney’s Office for them to prosecute,” Fair McEvers said during the hearing.

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court in Lidke v. Freed held that a public official that blocks someone from commenting on their social media has committed a free speech violation only if the official has been given the authority to speak on behalf of the state; and the official invoked that authority when speaking in the posts in which an individual was blocked from commenting.

“It is ironic — or unique, at a minimum — that a U.S. Supreme Court decision comes out in the course of a pending state appeal, which absolutely on all fours, addresses the issue and determines that Mr. Sanders claims are futile and meritless,” Swanson said during the hearing.

Justices took the matter under advisement.

In 2023, Sanderson also brought a lawsuit against the Walsh County Sheriff’s Office for allegedly blocking him from its Facebook page, the Grand Forks Herald reported. That case is scheduled for a jury trial before U.S. District Court Judge Peter Welte in March 2026.

He brought a lawsuit against the North Dakota Republican Party in 2022, alleging he was unfairly denied the ability to be a delegate to the state GOP convention. The case was dismissed with prejudice the same year.

Myrdal declined to comment Monday, referring questions to her attorney. Swanson did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.