Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.

United States Supreme Court, 2021

​

Can a public school punish a student for something posted on social media off-campus and after school hours?

​

That question reached the Supreme Court in 2021, and the answer became one of the most important student free speech decisions recently.

​

In 2017, high school student Brandi Levy was disappointed after she failed to make the varsity cheerleading team at her school in Mahanoy Area School District.

​

While off campus on a weekend, Levy posted a photo to Snapchat with a caption that included profanity criticizing the school and the cheerleading program. The post was shared with a small group of friends and disappeared after 24 hours, but another student took a screenshot and showed it to the coaches.

​

The coaches suspended Levy from the junior varsity cheerleading team for one year, saying her post violated team rules requiring respect for the school and other students.

​

Levy argued that because she made the post off campus and on her own time, the school had violated her First Amendment rights.

The case eventually reached the Supreme Court and the Court ruled 8–1 in favor of Levy.

​

The Court began its opinion by reviewing its prior decisions on student free speech rights. It noted that “students do not ‘shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression,’ even ‘at the school house gate.’”  

​

Student speech rights, however, must be considered “‘in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.’” As a result, there are four types of students speech “that schools may regulate in certain circumstances:”

​

• Speech during an in-school assembly that was indecent, lewd, or vulgar;

• Speech during a class trip that promoted illegal drug use;

• Speech that others may reasonably perceive as bearing the imprimatur of the school, like speech in a student newspaper; and

• Speech that materially disrupts classwork, involves substantial disorder, or an invasion of others’ rights.​

​

But all of the Supreme Court’s prior cases involved speech that occurred while students were under a school’s supervision. The Court explained that when students speak outside of school or school-related activities, the justifications for allowing schools to regulate student speech are not as strong. To begin with, when children are off-campus, it is typically the responsibility of parents, not school officials, to “protect, guide, and discipline” them. 

 

Also, if schools can regulate off-campus student speech, that means schools could control “all the speech a student utters during the full 24-hour day.”  Allowing around-the-clock restrictions on unpopular speech “may mean the student cannot engage in that kind of speech at all.  

​

Finally, schools have an interest in allowing unpopular expression off-campus because it allows students to become accustomed to hearing opinions they disagree with, which is a key aspect of our democratic system of government.

​

The Court concluded that “[t]aken together, these three features of much off-campus speech mean that the leeway the First Amendment grants to schools in light of their special characteristics is diminished.”

​

In this case, Levy's Snapchat post contained profanity, but it did not seriously disrupt school, threaten anyone, or target another student with harassment. Nor did it involve types of speech that fall outside the First Amendment like fighting words or obscenity. Instead, “B.L. uttered the kind of pure speech to which, were she an adult, the First Amendment would provide strong protection.”  Also weighing in her favor was the fact that her speech occurred “outside of school hours from a location outside the school” and that she “transmitted her speech through a personal cellphone, to an audience consisting of her private circle of Snapchat friends.”  

​

The Supreme Court had, in the past, allowed schools to restrict vulgar student speech.  This case, in the Court’s view, was different.  While schools have an interest “in teaching good manners and consequently in punishing the use of vulgar language aimed at part of the school community[,]” that interest was “weakened considerably” since the speech occurred outside of school.

​

The school was also unsuccessful at convincing the Court that it could punish B.L.’s speech to prevent a disruption to the cheerleading team, a school-sponsored activity.  In-class discussion about the social media post took up only a few minutes of class time for a couple of day. While the post upset some members of the cheerleading team, the controversy did not disrupt class or school activities. As a result, “[t]he alleged disturbance here does not meet Tinker’s demanding standard.”  The Court also did not find the school’s argument that the controversy could impact team morale to be a valid reason to restrict her First Amendment rights.

​

In the end, the Supreme Court concluded that the school’s actions violated B.L.’s First Amendment rights. 

​

While it recognized that students have greater free speech rights outside of school, this case did not eliminate schools’ ability to discipline students for off-campus speech. Schools may still be able to do so in certain situations, like with serious bullying, harassment, true threats of violence, cheating, academic misconduct, or major disruptions to school operations. Given how frequently students use social media, this area of the law is sure to continue to develop.

​

​

​

​

​

This content is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Student-speech cases depend heavily on the specific facts, applicable school policies, and the law in the relevant jurisdiction.  Students or parents with questions about their rights should consult with a licensed attorney.