Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B.L. - 141 S. Ct. 2038 (2021)

Rule:

Three features of off-campus speech often, even if not always, distinguish schools’ efforts to regulate that speech from their efforts to regulate on-campus speech. Those features diminish the strength of the unique educational characteristics that might call for special First Amendment leeway. First, a school, in relation to off-campus speech, will rarely stand in loco parentis. The doctrine of in loco parentis treats school administrators as standing in the place of students’ parents under circumstances where the children’s actual parents cannot protect, guide, and discipline them. Geographically speaking, off-campus speech will normally fall within the zone of parental, rather than school-related, responsibility.

Facts:

Mahanoy Area High School student B.L. failed to make the school's varsity cheerleading squad. While visiting a local convenience store over the weekend, B.L. posted two images on Snapchat, a social media application for smartphones that allowed users to share temporary images with selected friends. B.L.'s posts expressed frustration with the school and the school's cheerleading squad, and one contained vulgar language and gestures. When school officials learned of the posts, they suspended B.L. from the junior varsity cheerleading squad for the upcoming year. After unsuccessfully seeking to reverse that punishment, B.L. and her parents sought relief in federal court, arguing inter alia that punishing B.L. for her speech violated the First Amendment. The District Court granted an injunction ordering the school to reinstate B.L. to the cheerleading team, holding that B.L.'s punishment violated the First Amendment because her Snapchat posts had not caused substantial disruption at the school. The Third Circuit affirmed the judgment. 

Issue:

Did the school violate B.L.’s First Amendment rights when it suspended her from the junior varsity cheerleading squad because of her Snapchat posts? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the school violated the student’s First Amendment rights by suspending her from the cheerleading team because, outside of school hours and away from campus, the student transmitted on social media vulgar language and gestures criticizing the school and its cheerleading team. Although the school's regulatory interests remained significant in some off-campus circumstances, certain features of off-campus speech diminished the strength of the unique educational characteristics that might call for special First Amendment leeway. According to the Court, the school's interest in prohibiting students from using vulgar language to criticize a school team or its coaches did not overcome the student's interest in free expression. In this case, the student spoke under circumstances where the school did not stand in loco parentis, and there was no evidence of a substantial disruption of a school activity.