B.L. v. Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. - 964 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2020)

Rule:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit holds that Tinker does not apply to off-campus speech—that is, speech that is outside school-owned, -operated, or -supervised channels and that is not reasonably interpreted as bearing the school's imprimatur.

Facts:

Appellee B.L. failed to make her high school's varsity cheerleading team and, over a weekend and away from school, posted a picture of herself with the caption "*** cheer" to Snapchat. She was suspended from the junior varsity team for a year and sued her school in federal court, advancing three claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: that her suspension from the team violated the First Amendment; that the school and team rules she was said to have broken were overbroad and viewpoint discriminatory; and that those rules were unconstitutionally vague. The district court granted summary judgment in B.L.'s favor, holding that the school violated B.L.’s First Amendment Rights. The school appealed.

Issue:

By suspending the student because of her snap, did the school violate the student’s First Amendment rights?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court ruled that B.L. had not waived her speech rights by agreeing to the team's rules and that her suspension from the team implicated the First Amendment even though extracurricular participation was merely a privilege. Moreover, the court held that B.L.'s snap was off-campus speech; it did not occur in a school-sponsored forum, and as it occurred away from campus, over the weekend, and without use of school resources, and thus not subject to regulation under Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 106 S. Ct. 3159, 92 L. Ed. 2d 549 (1986). The court further averred that since the posting had not caused any actual or foreseeable substantial disruption of the school environment, the snap was not subject to discipline under Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969). From the foregoing, the court concluded the school had violated B.L.'s First Amendment rights, and affirmed the judgment of the district court.