IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-41060

ZULEMA LONGORIA, As Next Friend of M.L., 

 Plaintiff - Appellant Cross-Appellee

v.

SAN BENITO INDEPENDENT CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT; 

HENRY SANCHEZ; ADRIAN VEGA; ASHLEY CAMACHO-GARZA; VELMA 

GARCIA, 

 Defendants - Appellees Cross-Appellants

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

Before KING, HIGGINSON, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:

A few weeks after she was selected to be the head varsity cheerleader at 

San Benito High School, M.L., a minor, was stripped of her position and

dismissed from the team when her cheerleading coaches discovered a series of 

posts on her personal Twitter account containing profanity and sexual 

innuendo. M.L.’s mother, Zulema Longoria, filed this lawsuit on behalf of her 

daughter under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She argues that the actions of the school 

district, its superintendent, the high school principal, and the cheerleading

coaches violated M.L.’s rights to free speech, due process, and equal protection. 

After the defendants moved for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 4, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-41060 Document: 00515184787 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2019
No. 18-41060

2

Procedure 12(b)(6), the district court held that the individual defendants were 

entitled to qualified immunity and dismissed M.L.’s complaint for failure to 

state a claim.

Because we agree that no clearly-established law placed the 

constitutionality of defendants’ conduct “beyond debate” at the time of M.L.’s 

dismissal from the team, Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011), we 

affirm the district court’s qualified-immunity holding. We likewise affirm the 

district court’s dismissal of M.L.’s claims for municipal liability, vagueness, 

and overbreadth because M.L. failed to plead facts that would entitle her to 

relief. 

I.

M.L. joined the varsity cheerleading team during her sophomore year at 

San Benito High School. In March 2017, she became the head varsity 

cheerleader of the team, a position she was supposed to hold for the remainder 

of that year and the following school year. As part of her participation on the 

team, M.L. and her mother were both required to sign the San Benito High 

School Cheerleading Constitution (“the Cheerleading Constitution”). Section 

5.12 of the Cheerleading Constitution requires cheerleaders to maintain 

“appropriate” conduct on their personal social-media accounts.

Shortly after she was named head cheerleader, M.L. and her mother 

were called into a meeting with Ashley Camacho-Garza and Velma Garcia, the 

two coaches of the cheerleading team. When they arrived, they were given a 

letter explaining that M.L. was being dismissed from the team because she had 

accumulated a number of demerits for posting material on her Twitter account

 Case: 18-41060 Document: 00515184787 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2019
No. 18-41060

3

in violation of the Cheerleading Constitution.1 M.L. alleges that this was the 

first time she was informed that the coaches were concerned about her socialmedia activity, and she received no prior notice about the demerits.

Eight of the posts identified by Camacho-Garza and Garcia were thirdparty messages created by other Twitter users. Using her own account, M.L. 

“liked” these posts, causing them to be shared with her social-media followers. 

The relevant posts include the following messages: (1) “Imma show my mom 

all the snaps2 from girls partying for spring break so she can appreciate her 

lame ass daughter some more,” (2) a tweet about braiding hair containing the 

acronym “lmao,”3 (3) a tweet containing an image of a text-message 

conversation between a mother and a daughter, in which the word “fuck” is 

used twice, (4) “I love kissing lmao,” (5) “i [sic] don’t fuck with people who 

lowkey try to compete with/ out do me,” (6) “I fucking love texas [sic] man, it’s 

so beautiful and just overall great! Why would anyone want to leave Texas[?],” 

(7) “I love her [third-party Twitter user] I FUCKING LOVE YOU SO MUCH 

AND YOU DONT [sic] EVEN KNOW IT LIKE BITCH I HOPE YOU DO 

GREAT SHIT IN LIFE I BELIEVE IN YOU,” and (8) a tweet from a Twitter 

account entitled “Horny FactsTM,” which states, “bitch don’t touch my . . .”4

The record contains two other posts allegedly deemed inappropriate by 

M.L.’s coaches. One, a third-party tweet that M.L. retweeted on her own 

account, was initially posted by a Twitter user called “Bitch Code.” The second

is M.L.’s own tweet responding “Yes” to a third-party user’s message asking 

 

1 Article XI of the Cheerleading Constitution explains that “[a]ny member receiving 

10 demerits will be dismissed immediately from the team.” 

2 The term “snaps” refers to messages sent through Snapchat, a social-media platform 

used for sharing videos and images.

3 The acronym “lmao” stands for “laughing my ass off.”

4 The eighth tweet contained an image that is indiscernible in the record. There is no 

indication the defendants took issue with the contents of this image.

 Case: 18-41060 Document: 00515184787 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/04/2019
No. 18-41060

4

“Did pope split you in half??”5 In the biography section at the top of M.L.’s 

Twitter account, she identified herself as a member of “San Benito Varsity 

Cheer.”

M.L. and her mother filed a grievance against the coaches’ actions with 

Henry Sanchez, the principal of San Benito High School. They complained that 

the Cheerleading Constitution was impermissibly vague as to the social-media 

content that would be considered “inappropriate” and subject to discipline, and 

they argued that M.L.’s dismissal from the team violated her right to free 

speech. In April 2017, Sanchez denied the grievance in a written ruling

following a hearing. M.L. and her mother met with Dr. Adrian Vega, the 

superintendent of the San Benito Independent Consolidated School District, to 

raise their concerns. A few days later, Dr. Vega informed them that Principal 

Sanchez’s ruling was final and would not be reviewed.6

M.L. and Zulema Longoria (“plaintiffs” or “M.L.”) filed this lawsuit in the 

Southern District of Texas against Camacho-Garza, Garcia, Sanchez, Vega, 

and the school district in August 2017. On July 31, 2018, the magistrate judge 

issued a report and recommendation recommending dismissal of the complaint 

in its entirety. Though the magistrate judge’s report concluded that the 

complaint plausibly alleged a violation of M.L.’s First Amendment rights, it 

found that there was no clearly-established law prohibiting the defendants 

from dismissing M.L. from the cheerleading team for online profanity and 

sexual innuendo. It based its conclusion, in part, on two specific facts: “(1) the 

 

5 M.L. provided the district court with an entry from “Urban Dictionary,” which 

explained that the phrase “split [a person] in half” is a sexual innuendo. 

6 M.L. was apparently allowed to rejoin the cheerleading team for the 2018–2019 

school year and was selected to serve as co-captain of the team during that school year. 

Nevertheless, because she and her mother seek money damages for the alleged constitutional 

violations, this case is not moot. See, e.g., Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, 697 

F.3d 279, 286 (5th Cir. 2012). 

 Case: 18-41060 Document: 00515184787 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/04/2019
No. 18-41060

5

student and her mother had agreed in writing that her social media page would 

be subject to the reach of the Cheerleading Constitution, and (2) the biography 

section of M.L.’s Twitter profile identified her as part of ‘San Benito Varsity 

Cheer.’” As a result, the magistrate judge recommended granting the 

individual defendants’ qualified-immunity defenses. The magistrate judge also 

recommended dismissing plaintiffs’ vagueness and overbreadth claims because 

these claims were raised for the first time in response to defendants’ motion to 

dismiss, and had not been asserted in the complaint. Finally, the magistrate

judge recommended dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claim against the school district 

because the complaint did not adequately plead that the district’s Board of 

Trustees had either adopted the Cheerleading Constitution on its own or 

delegated policymaking authority to Sanchez.

The district court adopted the report and recommendation over

plaintiffs’ objections and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the

complaint. On appeal, M.L. challenges the district court’s conclusions that the

individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that M.L. failed 

to state a claim for vagueness, overbreadth, or municipal-liability.7

II.

We “review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de novo, 

applying the same standard applied by the district court.” Masel v. Villarreal, 

924 F.3d 734, 742–43 (5th Cir. 2019). “To survive a motion to dismiss ‘a 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”’” Id. at 743 (quoting Waller v. 

Hanlon, 922 F.3d 590, 599 (5th Cir. 2019)). In conducting this analysis, we 

 

7 M.L. does not appeal the district court’s dismissal of her equal protection claim, nor 

does she appeal the district court’s holding that she failed to allege specific conduct by 

Superintendent Vega that allegedly caused her constitutional injuries. 

 Case: 18-41060 Document: 00515184787 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/04/2019
No. 18-41060

6

“accept[] all well-pleaded facts as true and view[] those facts in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiffs.” Doe ex rel. Magee v. Covington Cty. Sch. Dist. ex rel. 

Keys, 675 F.3d 849, 854 (5th Cir. 2012). Though the complaint need not contain 

“detailed factual allegations,” it must contain sufficient factual material to 

“allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56 (2007)). 

When a defendant asserts a qualified-immunity defense in a motion to 

dismiss, the court has an “obligation . . . to carefully scrutinize [the complaint] 

before subjecting public officials to the burdens of broad-reaching discovery.” 

Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 791 (5th Cir. 1986); see also Wicks v. Miss. 

State Emp’t Servs., 41 F.3d 991, 995 n.16 (5th Cir. 1995) (“[I]mmunity means 

more than just immunity from liability; it means immunity from the burdens 

of defending a suit, including the burdens of pretrial discovery.”). A defendant 

is entitled to qualified immunity if his “conduct does not violate clearly 

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person 

would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). “This is 

not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the 

very act in question has previously been held unlawful, but it is to say that in 

the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent.” Porter v. 

Ascension Parish Sch. Bd., 393 F.3d 608, 618 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Anderson 

v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). If, at the time of the events underlying 

the litigation, “insufficient precedent existed to provide school officials with 

‘fair warning’ that the defendants’ conduct violated the First Amendment,” the 

defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Jackson v. Ladner, 626 F. App’x 

80, 88 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Bush v. Strain, 513 F.3d 492, 502 (5th Cir. 

2008)).

 Case: 18-41060 Document: 00515184787 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/04/2019
No. 18-41060

7

III.

M.L. argues that the defendants violated her First Amendment rights 

when they dismissed her from the cheerleading team as a punishment for her 

social-media activity. She argues that her off-campus Twitter posts, which 

were not threatening or directed towards the school community, did not come

within the disciplinary reach of school officials. The district court agreed that 

the complaint stated a “legally sufficient First Amendment claim against [the] 

Individual Defendants,” but it held that there was no clearly-established law 

that would have made it obvious to the defendants that extracurricular 

discipline was subject to the same level of constitutional protection as other 

forms of school-based discipline. As a result, the court granted qualified 

immunity to the individual defendants.

In reaching its conclusion, the district court followed the traditional twostep approach to qualified immunity. First, it determined that the facts alleged 

by M.L. stated a claim for the violation of a constitutional right. Then, it 

analyzed whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the 

defendants’ actions. This two-step inquiry, however, is not mandatory. Since

the Supreme Court’s decision in Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), 

courts have the discretion to decide “which of the two prongs of the qualified 

immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in 

the particular case at hand,” id. at 236. If the court determines that the right 

asserted by the plaintiff was not clearly established, it need not reach the more 

difficult constitutional question. Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 707 (2011); 

see also Morgan v. Swanson, 659 F.3d 359, 384 (5th Cir. 2011) (“Because we 

have granted immunity to the [defendants] at step two of the qualifiedimmunity analysis, it is within our discretion to decline entirely to address the 

constitutionality of the defendants’ conduct.”). Indeed, the Supreme Court has 

“detailed a range of circumstances in which courts should address only the 

 Case: 18-41060 Document: 00515184787 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/04/2019
No. 18-41060

8

immunity question,” and has admonished courts to “think hard, and then think 

hard again, before turning small cases into large ones” by engaging in 

unnecessary constitutional analysis. Camreta, 563 U.S. at 707.

We therefore turn to the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis 

and find that, regardless of whether M.L.’s rights were violated, the right at 

issue was not clearly established. See Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005 (5th 

Cir. 1998) (“[T]his court may affirm a judgment upon any basis supported by 

the record.”). Nevertheless, though we do not reach the first prong, we are 

mindful of the pressing “need to provide clear guidance for students, teachers, 

and school administrators that balances students’ First Amendment rights . . 

. with the vital need to foster a school environment conducive to learning.” Bell 

v. Itawamba County Sch. Bd., 799 F.3d 379, 403 (5th Cir. 2015) (Costa, J., 

concurring). Given the ubiquity of social media and the permeable boundaries 

between on-campus and off-campus speech, this task is complicated but 

increasingly urgent. We thus conclude by articulating limitations derived from 

our existing precedent for school discipline of student off-campus speech. 

A. 

In 1969, the Supreme Court famously declared that students do not 

“shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the 

schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comm. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 

506 (1969). Still, while the First Amendment’s protections apply to the school 

environment, “those rights must be tempered in the light of a school official’s 

duty to, inter alia, ‘teach[] students the boundaries of socially appropriate 

behavior’ and ‘protect those entrusted to their care.’” Bell, 799 F.3d 379, 389-

90 (first quoting Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 681 (1986); 

then quoting Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393, 408 (2007)). When determining 

the contours of a student’s free speech rights, we must keep in mind the 

“special characteristics of the school environment,” acknowledging that “the 

 Case: 18-41060 Document: 00515184787 Page: 8 Date Filed: 11/04/2019
No. 18-41060

9

constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically 

coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.” Morse, 551 U.S. at 396–

97 (quoting Fraser, 478 U.S. at 682)). 

The Supreme Court first addressed the limits of school discipline of 

student expression in Tinker. In evaluating the constitutionality of the school 

district’s suspension of students for wearing black armbands to protest the 

Vietnam War, the Court balanced the need to maintain school order and 

promote a safe learning environment against the students’ right to express 

their opinions. 393 U.S. at 740–41. The Court held that the students’ speech, 

which neither “interrupted school activities nor . . . intrude[d] in the school 

affairs or the lives of others,” was protected by the First Amendment. Id. at 

740. Only where a student’s speech actually causes or reasonably might be 

projected to cause a “substantial disruption of or material interference with 

school activities” may a school impose discipline for student speech. Id.; see 

also Bell, 799 F.3d at 390 (observing that the Tinker standard may be satisfied 

“either by showing a disruption has occurred, or by showing ‘demonstrable 

factors that would give rise to any reasonable forecast by the school 

administration of ‘substantial and material’ disruption” (emphasis omitted) 

(quoting Shanley v. Ne. Indep. Sch. Dist., 462 F.2d 960, 974 (5th Cir. 1972)). 

Since Tinker, the Court has considered the reach of the First Amendment 

in schools on three occasions. In each of these cases, the Court articulated a 

“narrow exception[] to the general Tinker standard based on certain 

characteristics, or content, of the speech.” Bell, 799 F.3d at 390. First, in 

Fraser, the Court held that a school was constitutionally permitted to 

discipline a student for utilizing vulgar and offensive terms and sexual 

innuendo during an on-campus event. Fraser, 478 U.S. at 683. The Court noted 

that the student’s speech took place during an “official high school assembly 

attended by 600 students,” and held that it was an appropriate function of a 

 Case: 18-41060 Document: 00515184787 Page: 9 Date Filed: 11/04/2019
No. 18-41060

10

school to “prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse.” 

Id at 681; see also id. at 683 (“The determination of what manner of speech in 

the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the 

school board.”). In Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), the Court 

upheld the right of a school district to “exercis[e] editorial control over the style 

and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long 

as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” Id.

at 273. And finally, in Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), the Court held 

that a school official may suppress speech conducted during a school-sponsored 

event that “promote[s] illegal drug use.” Id. at 410.

Notably, each of these cases represents an exception to the substantialdisturbance test articulated in Tinker. In affirming the schools’ right to 

discipline the speech at issue in those cases, the Court did not require the 

school officials to forecast a substantial disruption to the classroom

environment or other school activities. Instead, the Court held that the district 

could discipline the students because of the “special features of the school 

environment” and the particularly harmful aspects of the speech at issue in 

each case. Bell, 799 F.3d at 392 (quoting Morse, 551 U.S. at 425 (Alito, J., 

concurring)). 

Recognizing that Fraser, Hazelwood, and Morse exemplify three narrow 

exceptions to the Tinker standard, we held in Bell that “threats against, and 

harassment and intimidation of, teachers” must be analyzed under the Tinker

rule. 799 F.3d at 392.8 In Bell, a high school student posted a rap recording to 

 

8 In Ponce v. Socorro Independent School District, 508 F.3d 765 (5th Cir. 2007), we 

applied the reasoning of Morse to a case involving a student’s threats of a “mass, systematic” 

school shooting. Id. at 771. We allowed the school district to discipline the speech in Ponce

because threats of widespread violence, like advocacy of illegal drug use, “gravely and 

uniquely” jeopardize the safety of the entire school community. Id. at 771–72 (“If school 

administrators are permitted to prohibit student speech that advocates illegal drug use 

 Case: 18-41060 Document: 00515184787 Page: 10 Date Filed: 11/04/2019
No. 18-41060

11

his personal Facebook page, and later to YouTube, while he was “[a]way from 

school or a school function and without using school resources.” Id. at 383. The 

recording contained threatening, profane, and intimidating language directed 

towards two teachers, accusing them of sexually harassing students at the high 

school. Id. at 384; see also id. at 403–04 (Dennis, J., dissenting). When the 

school became aware of the recording, Bell was suspended. Id. at 385. On 

appeal, we upheld the district’s disciplinary actions. Id. at 394. Though Bell’s 

speech was conducted off-campus, it was “intentionally direct[ed] at the school 

community,” and the speech could reasonably be understood “by school officials 

to threaten, harass, and intimate a teacher.” Id.at 396. These unique features 

of the speech in Bell allowed the school to reasonably forecast “a substantial 

disruption,” justifying school discipline. Id. at 398.

M.L. argues that Bell squarely applies to this case. She asserts that Bell

“made it abundantly clear that intent to reach the school community is the 

most important factor when deciding if Tinker applies to off-campus online 

speech.” Because M.L. did not intend her tweets to reach the school, she argues, 

Tinker did not apply to her off-campus speech, and therefore the defendants 

were not permitted to dismiss her from the team. 

Bell, however, did not articulate a generally-applicable standard for the 

discipline of all off-campus speech, including the tweets here. To the contrary,

we noted in Bell that we were declining to adopt a “specific rule” that would 

apply to all circumstances under which off-campus speech may be restricted. 

 

because illegal drug use presents a grave and in many ways unique threat to the physical 

safety of students, then it defies logical extrapolation to hold school administrators to a 

stricter standard with respect to speech that gravely and uniquely threatens violence, 

including massive deaths, to the school population as a whole.” (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted)). We have thus applied the limited exception in Morse to a circumstance 

distinct from the drug-related speech in that case. Neither party suggests, however, that the 

Morse standard applies to the lewd speech at issue here. 

 Case: 18-41060 Document: 00515184787 Page: 11 Date Filed: 11/04/2019
No. 18-41060

12

Id. at 394. Instead, we limited ourselves to the facts of the case before us, 

observing only that “Bell’s admittedly intentionally directing at the school 

community his rap recording containing threats to, and harassment and 

intimidation of, two teachers permits Tinker’s application in this instance.” Id.; 

see also id. at 401–02 (Elrod and Jones, JJ., concurring). In deciding only the 

case before us, we did not model our decision on the Third Circuit’s approach 

to off-campus student speech. That circuit, in a pair of en banc cases decided 

the same day, decisively held that a school may not discipline a student for “offcampus speech that is not school-sponsored or at a school-sponsored event and 

that caused no substantial disruption at school,” J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue 

Mountain School District, 650 F.3d 915, 933 (3d Cir. 2011); Layshock ex rel. 

Layshock v. Hermitage School District, 650 F.3d 206, 207 (3d Cir. 2011) 

(holding that “the First Amendment prohibits [a] school from reaching beyond 

the schoolyard” to discipline “expressive conduct that originated outside of the 

schoolhouse, did not disturb the school environment and was not related to any 

school sponsored event”). Because Bell, in contrast to the Third Circuit, did not 

articulate a generalized rule that could have applied to M.L.’s speech, it does 

not constitute clearly-established binding law that should have placed the 

defendants on notice about the constitutionality of their actions.

Our decisions in two other cases help to underscore the fact that much 

of our law on the boundaries of off-campus speech remained unclear at the time 

that M.L. was dismissed from the cheerleading team. In Porter v. Ascension 

Parish School Board, 393 F.3d 608 (5th Cir. 2004), we granted qualified 

immunity to a school official after a student’s sketch depicting a “violent siege” 

on his high school community was inadvertently brought to school by his 

younger brother. Id. at 611, 620. We noted that the contours of the First 

Amendment “as applied to off-campus student speech inadvertently brought 

on campus by others” was “unsettled.” Id. at 620. Because of the uncertainty 

 Case: 18-41060 Document: 00515184787 Page: 12 Date Filed: 11/04/2019
No. 18-41060

13

in the law and the lack of clear precedent that could have guided official 

conduct, we held that the school official’s actions were reasonable. Id. at 621. 

Since Porter, our cases have failed to clarify the law governing school officials’ 

actions in disciplining off-campus speech. In Jackson v. Ladner, 626 F. App’x 

80 (5th Cir. 2015), a case applying pre-Bell authority, we granted qualified 

immunity to a school official who suspended a cheerleader from the cheer 

squad based on messages she sent to another member of the team on Facebook. 

Id. at 81, 88–89. We noted that our cases “had sent ‘inconsistent signals’ with 

regard to ‘how far school authority to regulate student speech reaches beyond 

the confines of the campus,’” and therefore failed to provide school officials with 

“fair warning” about the boundaries of on-campus speech. Id. at 88–89 (quoting 

Porter, 393 F.3d at 620). Given these cases, we cannot say that our precedent 

clearly established rules governing defendants’ actions.9

M.L. argues that the Supreme Court’s own cases clearly established the 

unconstitutionality of the defendants’ actions. She notes that in Morse, the 

Court distinguished between the permissible discipline of on-campus lewd 

speech in Fraser and the broader protection of similar speech conducted in a 

public forum. See Morse, 551 U.S. at 405 (“Had Fraser delivered the same 

speech in a public forum outside the school context, he would have been 

protected.”). M.L. relies on negative inferences from each of the Supreme 

Court’s cases—the assumption that any speech that does not match the unique 

 

9 Nor is there robust persuasive authority from other circuits that clearly established 

the conditions that would justify school discipline of off-campus speech. The Third Circuit’s 

decisions in Layshock and Snyder most closely resemble the facts of this case because they 

also involved online lewd speech, but the Second Circuit in Doninger v. Niehoff, 527 F.3d 41 

(2d Cir. 2008), declined to “conclusively determine Fraser’s scope,” thus leaving open the 

question of when and whether a school can discipline off-campus vulgarity. Id. at 49; see also 

Wynar v. Douglas County School District, 728 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2013) (observing that, 

beyond the four Supreme Court cases involving school-based speech, “[t]here is some 

uncertainty at the outer boundaries as to when courts should apply school speech precedents” 

(alteration in original) (quoting Morse, 551 U.S. at 401)). 

 Case: 18-41060 Document: 00515184787 Page: 13 Date Filed: 11/04/2019
No. 18-41060

14

characteristics of the speech in those cases is entitled to full First Amendment 

protection. Though “[w]e do not require a case directly on point” to defeat a 

qualified-immunity defense, a school official is entitled to immunity from suit 

unless “existing precedent . . . placed the statutory or constitutional question 

beyond debate.” Al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 741 (emphasis added); see also Morrow v. 

Meachum, 917 F.3d 870, 875 (5th Cir. 2019) (“[C]learly established law comes 

from holdings, not dicta.”). The Court’s four school speech cases, including 

Morse, all pertain to on-campus speech or speech conducted during a schoolsponsored activity. Because the Court has not had the occasion to articulate a 

rule that sets forth the limits of school discipline of off-campus speech, its cases

did not clearly establish the contours of M.L.’s rights in light of the specific 

facts of this case. See, e.g., Brown v. Miller, 519 F.3d 231, 236–37 (5th Cir 

2008); Doninger, 527 F.3d at 48 (“The Supreme Court has yet to speak on the 

scope of a school’s authority to regulate expression that . . . does not occur on 

school grounds or at a school-sponsored event.”).

Indeed, there are a number of unique circumstances present here that 

set this case apart from Bell and the Supreme Court’s precedent. M.L. and her 

mother both signed the Cheerleading Constitution, which put them on notice 

that M.L.’s social-media activity could be monitored and penalized. M.L. 

identified herself as a member of the San Benito cheerleading team on her 

Twitter page. And perhaps most notably, M.L. was dismissed from an 

extracurricular activity as a consequence of her speech—not suspended from 

school altogether. The fact that the retaliatory action here involved an 

extracurricular sanction further distinguishes this case from our precedent. 

See Jackson, 626 F. App’x at 89 (granting qualified immunity in part because 

the plaintiff “was not suspended from school on the basis of her speech but 

rather suspended from her participation on the cheer squad”). Other circuits 

have noted that the extracurricular context may give rise to its own 

 Case: 18-41060 Document: 00515184787 Page: 14 Date Filed: 11/04/2019
No. 18-41060

15

constitutional limitations, in part because “student athletes are subject to more 

restrictions than the student body at large.” Lowery v. Euverard, 497 F.3d 584, 

589 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 657

(1995)); see also Wildman ex rel. Wildman v. Marshalltown Sch. Dist., 249 F.3d 

768, 772 (8th Cir. 2001) (finding no constitutional violation where a basketball 

player was dismissed from the team for using “insubordinate speech toward 

her coaches”).

In the absence of a case providing a general rule that could have placed 

defendants on notice, we decline to find that M.L.’s free speech rights were 

clearly established at the time that she was dismissed from the cheerleading 

team. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s holding that the individual 

defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

B.

Before addressing M.L.’s remaining claims, we briefly synthesize the 

school speech law identified above. We note that the lack of clarity in the case 

law has given rise to frequent calls from commentators asking courts to “more 

clearly delineate the boundary line between off-campus speech entitled to 

greater First Amendment protection, and on-campus speech subject to greater 

regulation.” Porter, 393 F.3d at 619–20 (citing scholarship). Much of our case 

law on these issues has resulted in a finding of qualified immunity, thus 

“bypass[ing]” an ultimate determination on the constitutional limits of official 

action “again, and again, and again.” Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 706 

(2011) (“[T]he qualified immunity situation threatens to leave standards of 

official conduct permanently in limbo.”). 

First, nothing in our precedent allows a school to discipline nonthreatening off-campus speech simply because an administrator considers it 

“offensive, harassing, or disruptive.” Bell, 799 F.3d at 402 (Elrod and Jones, 

JJ., concurring); see also id. (observing that “the First Amendment does not, 

 Case: 18-41060 Document: 00515184787 Page: 15 Date Filed: 11/04/2019
No. 18-41060

16

for example, allow a public school to punish a student for ‘writ[ing] a blog entry 

defending gay marriage’ from his home computer, even if the blog entry causes 

a substantial disruption at the school” (citing Snyder, 650 F.3d at 939 (Smith, 

J., concurring)). Second, it is “indisputable” that non-threatening student 

expression is entitled to First Amendment protection, even though the extent 

of that protection may be “diminished” if the speech is “composed by a student 

on-campus, or purposefully brought onto a school campus.” Porter, 393 F.3d at 

618–19. And finally, as a general rule, speech that the speaker does not intend

to reach the school community remains outside the reach of school officials. See 

id. at 615 (holding that a student drawing that was “completed in [the 

student’s] home, stored for two years, and never intended by him to be brought 

to campus” does not “constitute[] student speech on the school premises”); see 

also Bell, 799 F.3d at 395. Because a school’s authority to discipline student 

speech derives from the unique needs and goals of the school setting, a student 

must direct her speech towards the school community in order to trigger schoolbased discipline. We acknowledge, however, that the “pervasive and 

omnipresent nature of the Internet” raises difficult questions about what it 

means for a student using social media to direct her speech towards the school 

community. Id.

 We express no opinion whether M.L.’s dismissal from the cheerleading 

team violated these principles, and we rest our holding instead on our 

conclusion that there was no clearly-established law that placed M.L.’s rights 

beyond debate at the time of the sanction—particularly given the unique 

extracurricular context here. We recognize that the articulation of these rules 

still leaves many questions unanswered, and a more defined rule will be left 

for another day. Bell, 799 F.3d at 403. Given these principles, however, we hope 

to give some guidance to schools for the future, with the important reminder 

 Case: 18-41060 Document: 00515184787 Page: 16 Date Filed: 11/04/2019
No. 18-41060

17

that “a broad swath of off-campus student expression” remains fully-protected 

by the First Amendment. Id. at 402 (Elrod and Jones, JJ., concurring). 

IV.

The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of M.L.’s vagueness and 

overbreadth claims, concluding that M.L. failed to assert these claims in her 

complaint and instead impermissibly raised them for the first time in her reply 

brief. M.L. did not object to the report and recommendation on this basis, and 

the district court did not explicitly reach the issue. A party’s failure to object 

to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation restricts the appeals court 

to a “plain error” standard of review. See Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., 

L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto 

Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996), superseded on other grounds by

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). To show plain error, a litigant must show a “clear or 

obvious error that affected substantial rights or seriously affected the fairness 

or integrity of the judicial proceeding.” United States v. McGill, 74 F.3d 64, 68 

(5th Cir. 1996) (citing United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir. 

1994)). We cannot say that the magistrate judge’s conclusion was clearly 

erroneous, and we therefore affirm the dismissal of these claims.10

Moreover, these claims would fail even if M.L. had properly asserted 

them in her complaint. To state a void-for-vagueness claim, a plaintiff must 

allege that she was deprived of a property or liberty right. See City of Chicago 

v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 58 (1999). We have held, however, that “[a] student’s 

interest in participating in a single year of interscholastic athletics amounts to 

 

10 On appeal, plaintiffs point to a single allegation in the “Facts” section of their 

complaint, which states, “Plaintiffs in their Level 1 grievance went on to show that the 

Cheerleading Constitution is vague as to what type of social media posting constitutes a 

violation.” This cannot be read to assert a vagueness claim as it explains only the arguments 

plaintiffs made in the grievance they filed with Sanchez. 

 Case: 18-41060 Document: 00515184787 Page: 17 Date Filed: 11/04/2019
No. 18-41060

18

a mere expectation rather than a constitutionally protected claim of 

entitlement.” Walsh v. La. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 616 F.2d 152, 159 (5th Cir. 

1980). With respect to overbreadth, such a claim is “not permitted where a 

party raises only situations that are essentially coterminous with [her] own 

conduct.” Seals v. McBee, 898 F.3d 587, 599 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). Beyond her own social-media activity, M.L. fails 

to allege any additional conduct that would be unconstitutionally prohibited 

under the Cheerleading Constitution, so her overbreadth claim would fail even 

if it had been properly raised in the complaint.

V.

Finally, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of M.L.’s municipalliability claim. M.L. seeks to hold the San Benito Independent Consolidated 

School District liable for the alleged violation of her First Amendment rights. 

Section 1983 does not make municipalities vicariously liable for the 

wrongdoing of their employees. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 

(1978). Thus, in order to hold a municipality liable for a constitutional violation

under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that “(1) an official policy (2) promulgated 

by the municipal policymaker (3) was the moving force behind the violation of 

a constitutional right.” Hicks-Fields v. Harris County, 860 F.3d 803, 808 (5th 

Cir. 2017) (quoting Peterson v. City of Fort Worth, 588 F.3d 838, 847 (5th Cir. 

2009)). The plaintiffs argue that the Board of Trustees may be held liable for 

either promulgating the Cheerleading Constitution itself or delegating the 

authority to do so to Sanchez, who exercised policymaking authority when he 

made a final decision on the meaning of “inappropriate” social-media behavior 

under the Cheerleading Constitution.

“[T]he identification of policymaking officials is a question of state law.” 

City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 124 (1988). Both parties agree 

 Case: 18-41060 Document: 00515184787 Page: 18 Date Filed: 11/04/2019
No. 18-41060

19

that Texas law establishes the San Benito Board of Trustees as the school

district’s policymaking body. See Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 11.151(b) (“The 

trustees as a body corporate have the exclusive power and duty to govern and 

oversee the management of the public schools of the district.”). Because the 

“specific identity of the policymaker is a legal question that need not be pled,” 

plaintiffs can state a claim for municipal liability as long as they plead 

sufficient facts to allow the court to reasonably infer that the Board either 

adopted a policy that caused M.L.’s injury or delegated to a subordinate officer 

the authority to adopt such a policy. Groden v. City of Dallas, 826 F.3d 280, 

284, 286 (5th Cir. 2016). In other words, plaintiffs must plead facts that 

sufficiently connect the policymaker—the Board of Trustees—to the allegedly 

unconstitutional policy—the Cheerleading Constitution. Id.

We agree with the district court that the plaintiffs failed to meet this

burden. Indeed, during oral argument, plaintiffs acknowledged that their 

complaint failed to connect the Cheerleading Constitution to the Board, 

acknowledging that they could not point to any facts in the complaint that 

alleged that the Board was responsible for promulgating and adopting the 

Constitution. In their complaint, plaintiffs make no allegations about the 

drafter of the Constitution or its origins. This case is thus distinct from those 

where we have found that a plaintiff adequately connected a policy to the 

policymaker. See, e.g., id. at 286 (holding that the plaintiff stated a claim for 

municipal liability where the complaint alleged that the official city 

spokesperson “publicly announced a new policy”).

Plaintiffs likewise fail to plead sufficient facts to allow the court to draw 

an inference that the Board of Trustees delegated policymaking authority to 

Sanchez. A municipality can be held liable only when it delegates policymaking 

authority, not when it delegates decisionmaking authority. See Pembaur v. 

City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 480–81 (1986); Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 

 Case: 18-41060 Document: 00515184787 Page: 19 Date Filed: 11/04/2019
No. 18-41060

20

7 F.3d 1241, 1246–47 (5th Cir. 1993). Plaintiffs argue that Sanchez exercised 

policymaking authority when he rendered a final decision on M.L.’s dismissal 

from the cheerleading team, but the “finality of an official’s action does not . . . 

automatically lend it the character of a policy,” Bolton v. City of Dallas, 541 

F.3d 545, 550 (5th Cir. 2008); see also Jett, 7 F.3d at 1246. The Supreme Court’s 

cases “sharply distinguish[] between decisionmakers and final policymakers.” 

Jett, 7 F.3d at 1247. Without additional allegations that demonstrate Sanchez 

possessed delegated policymaking authority, plaintiffs fail to state a claim for 

municipal liability. Thus, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of this claim.

VI.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-41060 Document: 00515184787 Page: 20 Date Filed: 11/04/2019