On August 19, 2025, the Court sent the case back to the county trial court and directed it to expand its analysis of whether Facebook posts of school board members on their personal page are records of the School District. (Penncrest Sch. Dist. v. Cagle.)
What Happened
In May, 2021, a high school library in Penncrest School District included, amidst a display of about 70 books, several books that addressed LBGTQ+ issues. A third-party contractor posted a picture of the display on Facebook. Two school board members then shared the post on their personal Facebook pages. One of the board members also expressed an opinion against teaching students about LGBTQ+ topics.
A local newspaper published an article about the topic. Thomas Cagle then filed a Right to Know request to the District, seeking disclosure of correspondence among the two Board members and the District “regarding homosexuality” as well as both Facebooks posts.
The District provided correspondence but denied disclosure of the Facebooks posts because they did not exist on the District’s accounts.
A series of appeals followed, first to the Office of Open Records, then to the county trial court, which both directed disclosure of the Facebook posts to Cagle. The District then appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
The Commonwealth Court took a deep dive into the definitions within RTKL of a “record” and reviewed previous decisions that addressed when a record documents a transaction or activity of a public agency. This discussion included analysis of factors to determine when emails issued from a private account are public and when emails contained on an agency’s server are not public.
The Commonwealth Court then reviewed two OOR determinations that specifically addressed social media content. The OOR determinations examined whether the social media page was or seemed to be an official agency page, and whether the content of the posts reflected agency activities or business.
The Commonwealth Court also referenced the US Supreme Court decision in Lindke v. Freed, which held that a government official’s social media posts are attributed to the governmental entity only if the official had authority to speak on its behalf and purported to exercise that authority.
The Commonwealth Court vacated the trial court decision and remanded with instructions to expand its analysis of the issues presented. In doing so, the Commonwealth Court identified factors that should be considered, but noted that they were “non-exclusive”: (1) the “trappings” of the account – is it public or private, does it have the appearance of an official agency account?; (2) does the post constitute agency action or was it created in connection with agency action?; and (3) was the account made or the post issued in the individual’s officially capacity?
Cagle appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court found no error in the Commonwealth Court’s legal analysis and agreed that these issues require a very fact- and situation-specific analysis.
After reviewing the statute and case law and generally agreeing with the Commonwealth Court’s summary of the same, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further analysis.
Bottom Line For Schools
Districts and board members need to be on notice that what they post on social media, even on their personal accounts, could end up as a public record subject to disclosure under the Right to Know law.
The courts identified several factors for consideration when determining whether social media posts are records of an agency. The courts were careful to note that the list of factors is not exclusive and that other considerations may exist. The answer is simple when social media posts are issued by the school district or at its direction. When this is not the case, schools should contact their solicitor for guidance.
