The court case Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. involved a student named B.L. who used Snapchat to post vulgar pictures expressing her frustration about not making the varsity cheerleading team. As a result, the school suspended her from the junior varsity cheerleading team for the following year. However, B.L. argued that her First Amendment rights had been violated. The Supreme Court sided with B.L. and ruled that schools cannot punish students for off-campus speech unless it significantly disrupts the school environment. Additionally, the Court emphasized that while schools can regulate certain types of speech on campus, they must also protect unpopular speech as schools play a crucial role in democracy.
Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L. is a 2021 U. S. Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether public school officials have the authority to regulate student speech that takes place outside of school grounds. The case involved B. L., a student at Mahanoy Area High School, who posted two photos on Snapchat during the weekend. One photo depicted B. L. and her friend making offensive gestures with a vulgar caption, while the other expressed her frustration about not making the varsity cheerleading team. One of B. L.’s Snapchat friends shared these photos with others, and eventually, they reached a cheerleading squad coach at the school. As a result, school officials suspended B. L. from the junior varsity cheerleading squad for the upcoming year. B. L. filed a lawsuit, arguing that her First Amendment rights had been violated. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of B. L., stating that the school could not punish her for her off-campus speech. The Court established three categories of speech that schools can regulate: 1) “indecent,” “lewd,” or “vulgar” speech on school premises, 2) speech that promotes illegal drug use during school-sponsored activities, and 3) speech that appears to be endorsed by the school, such as in a school newspaper. However, the Court also acknowledged that public schools may have valid reasons to regulate off-campus speech in certain circumstances. In this case, the Court determined that B. L.’s speech was protected by the First Amendment because it occurred outside of school hours, at a location off-campus, and was shared within a limited circle of friends without specifically identifying anyone. The Court also concluded that the school’s interest in prohibiting vulgar language used to criticize school officials was diminished in this case because B. L. did not use such language on school grounds, and the school was not acting as a substitute parent. Justice Alito wrote a concurring opinion, proposing a framework for courts to use when analyzing similar cases. This opinion suggests that courts should consider whether the parent has reasonably given the school authority to regulate the student’s speech in question. Justice Alito also advised courts to distinguish between vulgar speech targeting the school as a whole and vulgar speech targeting a specific individual within the school. Justice Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that the majority opinion disregarded previous cases that allowed schools to regulate off-campus speech when it had a direct tendency to harm the school, students, programs, or faculty members.
The case involves a high school student, B.L., who was disciplined by her school for posting a profanity-laden Snapchat message criticizing her school’s cheerleading team. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the school violated B.L.’s First Amendment rights by punishing her for off-campus speech.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of B.L., stating that the school violated her First Amendment rights. They held that schools have limited authority to regulate off-campus speech, and B.L.’s Snapchat message did not cause substantial disruption to the school environment.
The case reinforces the principle that students have free speech rights, even when they are off-campus. Schools can only regulate off-campus speech if it causes substantial disruption to the school environment.
Schools can discipline students for social media posts if they cause substantial disruption to the school environment or if they involve harassment, threats, or other forms of harmful speech. However, the Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. case establishes that schools have limited authority to regulate off-campus speech.
The Supreme Court considered the location of the speech (off-campus), the content of the speech (a profanity-laden Snapchat message criticizing the school), and the impact of the speech on the school environment (no substantial disruption).
Schools have limited authority to regulate students’ speech outside of school hours. The Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. case clarified that schools can only regulate off-campus speech if it causes substantial disruption to the school environment.
If schools violate students’ free speech rights, they may face legal consequences, including lawsuits and potential damages. Additionally, schools may be required to revise their policies and procedures to align with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Schools can balance students’ free speech rights by implementing clear policies that define the boundaries of acceptable speech, both on and off-campus. They should focus on addressing speech that causes substantial disruption or poses a threat to the school community while respecting students’ rights to express their opinions.
Schools have more authority to regulate students’ speech during extracurricular activities, as these activities are often considered an extension of the school environment. However, the Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. case emphasizes that schools still need to consider the impact of the speech on the overall school environment.
The Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. case sets an important precedent for future cases involving students’ free speech rights. It establishes that schools have limited authority to regulate off-campus speech and provides guidance on how to balance students’ rights with maintaining a safe and respectful learning environment.
This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
This glossary post was last updated: 17th April 2024.
To help you cite our definitions in your bibliography, here is the proper citation layout for the three major formatting styles, with all of the relevant information filled in.
- Page URL:https://dlssolicitors.com/define/mahanoy-area-school-district-v-b-l/
- Modern Language Association (MLA):Mahanoy Area School District V. B.L.. dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. May 09 2024 https://dlssolicitors.com/define/mahanoy-area-school-district-v-b-l/.
- Chicago Manual of Style (CMS):Mahanoy Area School District V. B.L.. dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. https://dlssolicitors.com/define/mahanoy-area-school-district-v-b-l/ (accessed: May 09 2024).
- American Psychological Association (APA):Mahanoy Area School District V. B.L.. dlssolicitors.com. Retrieved May 09 2024, from dlssolicitors.com website: https://dlssolicitors.com/define/mahanoy-area-school-district-v-b-l/
Our team of professionals are based in Alderley Edge, Cheshire. We offer clear, specialist legal advice in all matters relating to Family Law, Wills, Trusts, Probate, Lasting Power of Attorney and Court of Protection.
All author posts