Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law and Public Disclosure of Social Media Posts

On August 19, 2025, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a long‑awaited decision in Penncrest School District v. Cagle. The case stemmed from a Right‑to‑Know Law (RTKL) request filed by Crawford County resident Thomas Cagle after two school‑board members criticized a Pride‑Month book display on their personal Facebook pages. One board member shared the display and called it “totally evil” and said the issue would be raised at the next board meeting, while another board member shared the post without comment. Cagle’s request sought emails and “all Facebook posts and comments” related to homosexuality and the district, including posts removed or made private. The district turned over some records but refused to produce the Facebook material because the accounts were personal. Both the Office of Open Records and the trial court disagreed with the School’s position and required the posts be disclosed. The Commonwealth Court vacated that order, and the state’s highest court accepted the case to settle whether personal social‑media posts can ever be public records.

The RTKL’s Two‑Part Test and Its Goals

The RTKL aims to “promote access to official government information in order to prohibit secrets, scrutinize the actions of public officials, and make public officials accountable for their actions”. It is remedial legislation and must be construed to maximize access to public records. Exemptions to the RTKL are strictly construed. Under the law, a public record is information (regardless of form) that documents a transaction or activity of an agency and is created, received or retained pursuant to law or in connection with a transaction, business or activity of the agency. This two‑part definition is the core test for whether a record is public, and it applies equally whether the information is a paper document, an email, or an online post.

How the Court Addressed Social‑Media Posts

The Commonwealth Court suggested that determining whether social‑media posts are public records requires evaluating several factors, including: the status of the account (public or private and whether it has the “trappings” of an official account), the content of the posts (whether they prove, support or evidence an agency transaction), and whether the official was acting in an official capacity. It vacated the trial court’s disclosure order and sent the case back for fact‑finding under this framework.

The Supreme Court, in a 4-3 opinion, agreed that context matters but rejected the idea that there is a special “social‑media” test. Justice Mundy’s majority opinion explained that although courts may need to look at facts unique to social media, such as whether an account is private or official and how it is used, the only test is the RTKL’s two‑part definition of a record. The justices noted that social media blurs personal and official communication and that it may be 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.” However, they stressed that those considerations merely help courts apply the two‑part test; they do not replace it.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the “two-part inquiry is the only test to be utilized when determining whether disclosure of information, regardless of its form, is required under the statute. As we find that the Commonwealth Court’s decision is not in tension with this test but rather, articulates reasonable facts that warrant consideration when resolving whether a social media post constitutes an agency record, we affirm the holding of the Commonwealth Court and remand the matter for further proceedings.”

Practical Take‑Aways and Next Steps

The Court’s decision maintains the status quo: personal social‑media posts are not automatically public records, but they can become public if they document agency business and meet the two‑part test. Agencies must look beyond the platform and evaluate whether a post relates to an agency transaction and whether the official acted in an official capacity.

In short, the RTKL remains complex. Determining whether a Facebook, Instagram, or X post is a public record requires fact‑intensive analysis of the account, the content, and the official’s role. The Supreme Court’s opinion reiterates that no matter the medium, the inquiry always turns on whether the information documents an agency transaction or activity and is connected to the agency’s business. This nuance means that open‑records disputes involving social media are likely to continue.

If you are an official navigating a request, or the subject of a RTK request, it is prudent to seek experienced guidance. McCormick Law Firm monitors these developments closely and provides expert advice on RTKL matters. While social‑media posts are not automatically subject to Pennsylvania’s Right‑to‑Know Law, they can be subject to disclosure under certain circumstances. Contact the team at McCormick Law Firm for practical advice on what is covered under the Right to Know Law, how to respond to RTK requests, and for representation in appeals.