In Penncrest School Dist. v. Cagle, ___ A.3d ___, 2025 WL 2400297 (Pa. Aug. 19, 2025), a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court supported the Commonwealth Court’s decision to cancel a trial court order that compelled a school district to disclose Facebook posts made by members of the school board.  

The Supreme Court rejected the requester’s argument that there is now a  “social media-specific” test for determining whether records are subject to disclosure but at the same time noted that “we cannot ignore the fact that, although the RTKL contains only one definition of ‘record’ resolving whether a Facebook profile or page is a record ‘of an agency’ requires the consideration of facts that would be relevant only to that particular form of communication, under those specific facts.” The Supreme Court reaffirmed the two-part test applicable to a “record”: (1) information that documents a transaction or activity of an agency; and (2) is created, received or retained pursuant to law or in connection with a transaction, business, or activity of the agency. 

The Supreme Court also agreed with the Commonwealth Court that agencies must “consider a host of different factors when assessing whether the Facebook posts documented a transaction or activity ‘of an agency.’” For example, the court stated that it is necessary to consider: 

• Whether a board member is posting his personal views on a private page to a limited audience or if he is publicly discussing board business in his official capacity 
• The content of the post in order to discern whether the information shows a transaction or activity of the agency (especially important in light of the blurry line created by social media) 

This is a big win for municipalities and municipal officials as it should begin to help reduce the number of RTKL requests for personal social media posts. Having said that, the decision does not mean that municipal officials now have carte blanche to use their social media accounts to avoid application of the RTKL.