Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 8 Jan 2021

Whether Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), which holds that public school officials may regulate speech that would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school, applies to student speech that occurs off campus.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The U.S. Supreme Court case Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., 2020, centered around the issue of free speech rights for students outside school grounds. The case was brought forth by a high school cheerleader (B.L.) who was suspended from her team for posting a profanity-laced Snapchat message off-campus during non-school hours expressing frustration about not making the varsity squad. The student sued the Pennsylvania-based Mahanoy Area School District, arguing that her First Amendment right to freedom of speech had been violated as schools should not have authority over what students say or do on their own time away from school premises and activities. In June 2021, in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of B.L., stating that while public schools may have special interest in regulating certain off-campus student speech, they did not possess unlimited regulatory authority.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

In the dissenting opinion for Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a student's right to free speech, even when off-campus, was too broad and could potentially limit schools' abilities to maintain order. He contended that historically, students’ rights at public schools were limited and these limitations could extend beyond physical boundaries of school grounds. According to him, this historical approach would give more flexibility in dealing with disruptive speech occurring outside school premises but having effect within it. He also expressed concern over how courts can determine whether certain conduct occurs on or off campus in today’s digital age where online platforms blur those lines.