Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 26.0

12 

MAHANOY AREA SCHOOL DIST. v. B. L. 

ALITO, J., concurring 

(speech taking place during “remote learning,” “participa-
tion in other online school activities,” “activities taken for 
school credit,” “travel en route to and from the school,” “[the 
time  during  which]  the  school  is  responsible  for  the  stu-
dent,”  and  “extracurricular  activities,”  as  well  as  speech
taking place on “the school’s immediate surroundings” or in 
the  context  of  “writing  . . .  papers”).16    The  Court’s  broad 
statements about off-premises speech must be understood 
with this in mind. 

At the other end of the spectrum, there is a category of
speech that is almost always beyond the regulatory author-
ity of a public school.  This is student speech that is not ex-
pressly and specifically directed at the school, school admin-
istrators,  teachers,  or  fellow  students  and  that  addresses 
matters of public concern, including sensitive subjects like
politics, religion, and social relations.  Speech on such mat-
ters lies at the heart of the First Amendment’s protection, 

—————— 

16 Two  other  examples  mentioned  by  the  Court—“communications  to 
school e-mail accounts or phones” and speech “on a school’s website”—
may fall into the same category if they concern school work.  Ante, at 6. 
The Court also mentions “breaches of school security devices,” ibid., but 
such breaches may be punishable regardless of whether the perpetrator 
is  a  student  at  the  school.    See,  e.g.,  18  Pa.  Const.  Stat.  §7611  (2016) 
(“Unlawful use of computer and other computer crimes”).  Another spe-
cific example provided by the Court is “all speech taking place over school
laptops.”  Ante, at 6.  I do not take this statement to apply under all cir-
cumstances to all student speech on such laptops.  In a well-publicized
case, a public high school that provided laptops to high school students 
used those computers to surreptitiously monitor students’ private mes-
sages  and  to  photograph  them  in  their  homes.    See  Robbins  v.  Lower 
Merion School Dist., 2010 WL 3421026, *1 (ED Pa., Aug. 30, 2010); see
also Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion 
for  Class  Certification  and  in  Support  of Defendants’  Cross-Motion  for 
Entry of Permanent Equitable Relief in Robbins v. Lower Merion School 
Dist.,  No.  2:10–cv–00665  (ED  Pa.),  pp.  4–5.    I  do  not  understand  the 
Court  to  approve  such  a  practice.    In  assessing  the  degree  to  which  a 
school can regulate speech on a laptop that a school provides for student 
use outside school, it would be important to know the terms of the agree-
ment under which the laptop was provided.