Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 34

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

1 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–255 
_________________ 

MAHANOY AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, PETITIONER v. 
B. L., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER FATHER, 
LAWRENCE LEVY AND HER MOTHER, 
BETTY LOU LEVY 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

[June 23, 2021] 

JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting. 
B. L., a high school student, sent a profanity-laced mes-
sage to hundreds of people, including classmates and team-
mates.  The message included a picture of B. L. raising her 
middle finger and captioned “F*** school” and “f*** cheer.”
This  message  was  juxtaposed  with  another,  which  ex-
plained  that  B. L.  was  frustrated  that  she  failed  to  make 
the varsity cheerleading squad.  The cheerleading coach re-
sponded by disciplining B. L.

The  Court  overrides  that  decision—without  even  men-
tioning the 150 years of history supporting the coach.  Us-
ing broad brushstrokes, the majority outlines the scope of
school authority.  When students are on campus, the major-
ity says, schools have authority in loco parentis—that is, as 
substitutes  of  parents—to  discipline  speech  and  conduct. 
Off campus, the authority of schools is somewhat less.  At 
that level of generality, I agree.  But the majority omits im-
portant detail.  What authority does a school have when it 
operates  in  loco  parentis?  How  much  less  authority  do
schools have over off-campus speech and conduct?  And how 
does a court decide if speech is on or off campus? 

Disregarding these important issues, the majority simply
posits three vague considerations and reaches an outcome.