Key Takeaways

1. Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. is a landmark Supreme Court case clarifying the limits of public school authority to regulate student speech made off-campus, particularly on social media.
2. The Court held that while schools may have some regulatory interest in off-campus speech, the First Amendment protects students' rights to free expression outside of school grounds and hours, especially when the speech does not cause substantial disruption.
3. This case sets a significant precedent for student speech in the digital age, requiring school policies to balance the need for order with robust protection of students’ constitutional rights.

Introduction

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., 594 U.S. 180 (2021), marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over the extent of student free speech rights and the reach of school authority in the digital era. At its core, the case addressed whether a public school could discipline a student for a social media post made off-campus and outside school hours. The Court’s ruling, delivered by Justice Stephen Breyer, established important boundaries for school regulation of student expression, especially as communication increasingly takes place online and outside traditional school settings.

For the official opinion, see the Supreme Court’s decision.

Background of the Case

The Incident

In 2017, Brandi Levy, a high school sophomore in the Mahanoy Area School District in Pennsylvania, was frustrated after not making the varsity cheerleading squad. On a Saturday, while off-campus, she posted a photo on Snapchat with a caption expressing her frustration using vulgar language: “F school, f softball, f cheer, f everything.” The post was visible to her friends for 24 hours and was made outside of school property and hours.

School Response

A screenshot of Levy’s post was brought to the attention of school officials. The school determined that Levy had violated the cheerleading team’s rules, which prohibited “disrespectful” behavior and the posting of “negative information” about the team online. As a result, Levy was suspended from the junior varsity cheerleading team for one year.

Legal Challenge

Levy and her parents, with the support of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), filed suit against the Mahanoy Area School District in federal court, arguing that the school’s disciplinary action violated her First Amendment right to free speech. The district court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of Levy, holding that the school’s authority to regulate student speech does not extend to off-campus speech that does not cause substantial disruption.

For more on the ACLU’s involvement, see ACLU of Pennsylvania: B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District.

Supreme Court Review

Grant of Certiorari

Recognizing the national significance of the case, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the question: To what extent can public schools regulate student speech that occurs off campus, particularly on social media?

Arguments Before the Court

The school district argued it needed the authority to discipline off-campus speech to maintain order and discipline, especially in the age of social media, where off-campus speech can rapidly affect the school environment. Levy, represented by the ACLU, contended that expanding school authority to off-campus speech would threaten students’ free expression rights and give schools too much power over students’ lives outside school.

For a comprehensive overview, visit the Oyez project summary.

Legal Principles and Precedents

Tinker v. Des Moines and Student Speech

The foundational precedent for student speech rights is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). In Tinker, the Court famously declared that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” However, Tinker also held that schools may regulate student speech that would “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.”

The Limits of Tinker

Prior to Mahanoy, lower courts were divided on whether Tinker’s “substantial disruption” test applied to off-campus speech. The rise of social media blurred the lines between on-campus and off-campus speech, making it increasingly difficult for courts and schools to draw clear boundaries.

Other Relevant Precedents

• Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986): Allowed schools to regulate lewd, vulgar, or plainly offensive speech at school.
• Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988): Permitted schools to regulate school-sponsored speech, such as student newspapers.
• Morse v. Frederick (2007): Allowed schools to restrict speech at school events that promotes illegal drug use.

These cases, while clarifying school authority in certain contexts, did not definitively address off-campus speech.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

Majority Opinion

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brandi Levy. Justice Breyer, writing for the majority, held that the school district’s punishment of Levy for her off-campus Snapchat post violated her First Amendment rights.

Key Points of the Ruling

1. Schools’ Regulatory Interests Are Diminished Off Campus: The Court recognized that schools have some interest in regulating certain off-campus speech (such as severe bullying or threats), but these interests are not as strong as they are for on-campus speech.
2. First Amendment Protections Are Strongest Off Campus: The Court emphasized that off-campus speech, especially when it involves political or religious expression, is at the core of the First Amendment’s protections.
3. Levy’s Speech Did Not Cause Substantial Disruption: The Court found no evidence that Levy’s post caused substantial disruption at school or within the cheerleading team.

The Court’s Reasoning

The Court articulated several reasons why schools should be cautious in regulating off-campus speech:

• Parental Responsibility: Off-campus speech is often under the domain of parental, not school, authority.
• 24/7 Regulation Concern: Allowing schools to regulate all off-campus speech would effectively subject students to round-the-clock surveillance, chilling their free expression.
• Importance of Free Expression: The First Amendment requires that students be able to express unpopular or critical opinions, especially outside of school.

For the official opinion, see the Supreme Court’s decision.

Justice Thomas’s Dissent

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the majority’s decision was inconsistent with historical understandings of school authority and that schools have traditionally had broader power to regulate student conduct, even off campus, when it affects the school environment.

Implications for School Policies

What Schools Can and Cannot Regulate

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mahanoy does not mean schools can never regulate off-campus speech. Instead, it establishes a framework:

• Permissible Regulation: Schools may regulate off-campus speech that involves threats, severe bullying, harassment, or speech that substantially disrupts school operations.
• Protected Speech: Ordinary off-campus expression, particularly criticism of the school or its programs, is generally protected.

Impact on Social Media

Given the prevalence of social media, this decision is particularly significant. Many student interactions now occur online and off-campus. The Court’s ruling ensures that students retain robust free speech rights in these settings, but also acknowledges that schools may intervene in extreme cases.

Policy Revisions

School districts across the country are revising their disciplinary policies to comply with Mahanoy. Policies must now:

• Clearly define the types of off-campus speech that may be subject to discipline.
• Ensure that any disciplinary action is supported by evidence of substantial disruption or other compelling school interests.
• Avoid overly broad rules that chill student speech, such as blanket prohibitions on “negative” comments about school activities.

For further analysis, see the Harvard Law Review’s discussion.

Broader Legal and Social Impact

Student Rights in the Digital Age

Mahanoy v. B.L. is widely seen as an affirmation of student rights in the digital era. As students increasingly use social media to communicate, the case sets an important precedent that schools cannot overreach in regulating students’ private, off-campus speech.

Civil Liberties Perspective

Civil liberties organizations, including the ACLU, hailed the decision as a victory for free speech. They argued that allowing schools to punish students for off-campus speech would have a chilling effect, discouraging students from expressing themselves or criticizing school policies.

School Authority and Safety

At the same time, the Court recognized that schools retain the ability to address serious off-campus speech that threatens school safety or targets members of the school community for harassment or bullying. The decision strikes a balance between protecting free speech and maintaining a safe educational environment.

Future Litigation

The Mahanoy decision leaves open questions that may be addressed in future cases, such as:

• How should courts assess when off-campus speech causes “substantial disruption”?
• What constitutes severe bullying or harassment that justifies school intervention?
• How do these principles apply to private schools or to speech that occurs in hybrid (partially on-campus, partially off-campus) contexts?

For more information, see SCOTUSblog’s coverage.

Practical Guidance for Schools and Students

For School Administrators

• Review and Revise Policies: Ensure student conduct codes are updated to reflect the limits imposed by Mahanoy. Avoid blanket bans on negative speech about school programs or personnel.
• Train Staff: Educate teachers and administrators about the boundaries of their authority over off-campus speech, with particular attention to social media.
• Document Disruption: When taking disciplinary action based on off-campus speech, gather clear evidence of substantial disruption or harm to the school environment.

For Students and Parents

• Know Your Rights: Students have strong First Amendment protections for off-campus speech, including on social media, but this right is not absolute.
• Understand the Limits: Speech that threatens violence, constitutes severe bullying, or targets individuals for harassment may still be subject to school discipline.
• Seek Legal Advice: If facing discipline for off-campus speech, consult with a legal professional or civil liberties organization for guidance.

Continuing Developments

The Mahanoy decision is likely to shape legal disputes for years to come, as new technologies and communication platforms emerge. Courts will continue to interpret the boundaries of student speech rights and school authority, particularly as issues of cyberbullying and online harassment become more prevalent.

School districts, students, and attorneys must stay informed about evolving legal standards. For attorneys seeking in-depth legal research and analysis, visit Counsel Stack for comprehensive resources.

Conclusion

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. stands as a landmark in the protection of student speech, especially in our increasingly digital society. The Supreme Court’s decision confirms that students’ First Amendment rights do not end at the schoolhouse gate, nor do they disappear when students express themselves online and off-campus. At the same time, the ruling recognizes the need for schools to maintain order and protect members of the school community from serious harm.

This case sets a clear precedent: while schools have some authority to regulate off-campus speech, particularly in cases of threats or severe bullying, the default position is that students’ free speech rights are robustly protected. School policies must be carefully crafted to respect these rights, and students should feel empowered to express themselves without undue fear of school discipline.

For attorneys and legal professionals, the nuances of Mahanoy v. B.L. underscore the importance of thorough legal research and up-to-date analysis. Explore more at Counsel Stack.

Disclaimer:
This guide provides a general overview of Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. and its implications. It is not legal advice. The law in this area is complex and evolving, and specific cases may present unique facts and legal issues. For professional legal guidance, consult a qualified attorney or visit Counsel Stack for detailed research tools.