Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L.
594 U.S. 180 (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While public schools retain some interest in regulating off-campus student speech, their authority to do so is significantly diminished compared to on-campus speech and cannot punish off-campus speech that does not cause a substantial disruption to school activities, threaten others, or fall within other limited categories of regulable speech.
Facts:
- B.L., a student at Mahanoy Area High School, tried out for the varsity cheerleading squad and a specific position on a private softball team, but did not make the varsity cheerleading team and was offered a spot on the junior varsity team instead.
- One weekend, B.L. and a friend visited a local convenience store, where B.L. used her personal smartphone to post two images on Snapchat to her 'friends' (approximately 250 individuals).
- The first Snapchat image showed B.L. and her friend with middle fingers raised, captioned: 'Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything.'
- The second Snapchat image was blank with a caption questioning why she and another student needed a year of junior varsity before varsity, implying unfairness.
- Some of B.L.'s Snapchat 'friends,' who were also Mahanoy Area High School students and members of the cheerleading squad, took screenshots of the posts and shared them with others, including a cheerleading coach.
- Several cheerleaders and other students expressed being 'visibly upset' about B.L.'s posts, and discussions about the posts took place during an Algebra class taught by one of the cheerleading coaches.
Procedural Posture:
- Mahanoy Area High School cheerleading coaches suspended B.L. from the junior varsity cheerleading squad for the upcoming year.
- The school's athletic director, principal, superintendent, and school board all affirmed B.L.'s suspension.
- B.L. and her parents filed a lawsuit in federal District Court against the Mahanoy Area School District, alleging a violation of B.L.'s First Amendment rights.
- The District Court granted a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, ordering the school to reinstate B.L. to the cheerleading team.
- The District Court subsequently granted B.L.'s motion for summary judgment, finding that her Snapchat posts had not caused substantial disruption and that her punishment violated the First Amendment.
- The Mahanoy Area School District appealed the District Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- A panel of the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, reasoning that the Tinker standard did not apply to off-campus speech because schools lacked special authority to regulate such speech.
- The Mahanoy Area School District filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public school's authority to regulate student speech, typically applied to on-campus conduct that substantially disrupts the school environment, extend to off-campus, vulgar social media posts made outside of school hours that express frustration but do not target specific individuals or cause substantial disruption?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
Yes, the school violated B.L.'s First Amendment rights because the school's interests in regulating her off-campus speech, in this instance, were not sufficient to outweigh her interest in free expression. The Court reaffirmed that students retain First Amendment rights, even if applied 'in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.' However, the Court distinguished off-campus speech, noting that the special characteristics that grant schools greater regulatory power over on-campus speech (e.g., in loco parentis authority, need to prevent substantial disruption) are often diminished when speech occurs off-campus. The opinion highlighted three key features of off-campus speech that limit school authority: 1) schools rarely stand in loco parentis (in the place of parents) when students are off-campus; 2) regulating off-campus speech extends school authority to a student's entire 24-hour day, necessitating greater judicial skepticism; and 3) schools have an interest in protecting unpopular student expression, especially off-campus, as 'nurseries of democracy.' Applying these considerations, the Court found that B.L.'s crude posts constituted 'pure speech,' not fighting words or obscenity, and were therefore highly protected. Her speech occurred off-campus, outside school hours, on a personal device, and to a private audience, further diminishing the school’s regulatory interest. The Court found the school's interest in teaching good manners weakened by the off-campus, personal nature of the speech and its critical message. Crucially, the school failed to demonstrate the 'substantial disruption' required by the Tinker standard; mere 'upset' among some students and brief classroom discussion were insufficient to justify the punishment.
Concurring - Justice Alito
Yes, the school violated B.L.'s First Amendment rights, and the Court correctly rules that public schools have limited authority over off-premises student speech, which courts should view with skepticism. Justice Alito underscored that this case is the first time the Supreme Court has addressed true off-premises student speech. He argued that a public school's authority to regulate student speech stems from an implicit parental consent, where parents delegate only the authority necessary for the school to fulfill its educational mission. This delegated authority is significantly less for off-premises speech. He differentiated between off-premises speech that is an extension of school activities (e.g., online homework, school trips), which schools may regulate, and speech on public issues, even if intemperate or crude, which is almost always beyond a school's regulatory power unless it constitutes a 'true threat.' Justice Alito concluded that B.L.'s posts were simply criticism, and the minimal disruption reported did not justify the school's disciplinary action. He emphasized that the freedom of speech would be meaningless if it succumbed to minor complaints or the mere fact that others find speech upsetting.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No, the school did not violate B.L.'s First Amendment rights because, based on historical legal principles, schools had the authority to discipline students for off-campus speech that had a 'proximate tendency to harm the school environment.' Justice Thomas contended that the Court should have consulted the historical understanding of school authority under the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the common law doctrine of in loco parentis and the historical rule allowing discipline for off-campus conduct that had a 'direct and immediate tendency to injure the school, to subvert the master’s authority, and to beget disorder and insubordination,' citing cases like Lander v. Seaver. He argued that B.L.'s profanity-laced criticism of her coaches and the cheerleading program, shared with hundreds of classmates, clearly met this historical standard by degrading the program and subverting authority. Justice Thomas criticized the majority for ignoring this historical foundation, which he believes leads to an unstable and unclear framework for schools and courts. He also suggested that participation in extracurricular activities might grant schools greater authority over related off-campus speech, and that social media's ability to instantly spread speech to campus might blur the 'on-campus'/'off-campus' distinction.
Analysis:
This landmark decision clarifies the scope of public school authority over student speech outside of school grounds and hours, significantly curtailing the expansive reach many schools asserted under the Tinker standard. While the Court avoided a bright-line rule, it established a framework that prioritizes student free speech rights off-campus by emphasizing the diminished role of in loco parentis, the broad implications of 24/7 speech regulation, and the school's obligation to foster democratic expression. The ruling places a higher burden on schools to demonstrate actual, substantial disruption, rather than mere discomfort or perceived negativity, for off-campus speech. This will likely encourage courts to apply greater scrutiny to school disciplinary actions stemming from off-campus social media posts and similar forms of student expression, particularly those that do not involve threats, harassment, or direct attacks on school operations.
