Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 38

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

5 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

it.  I  would  thus  apply  the  rule.  Assuming  that  B. L.’s
speech occurred off campus, the purpose and effect of B. L.’s 
speech  was  “to  degrade  the  [program  and  cheerleading 
staff]” in front of “other pupils,” thus having “a direct and 
immediate  tendency  to  . . .  subvert  the  [cheerleading
coach’s] authority.”  Id., at 115, 120.  As a result, the coach 
had authority to discipline B. L. 

Our modern doctrine is not to the contrary.  “[T]he penal-
ties  imposed  in  this  case  were  unrelated  to  any  political
viewpoint” or religious viewpoint.  Bethel School Dist. No. 
403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675, 685 (1986).  And although the
majority sugar coats this speech as “criticism,” ante, at 8, it 
is well settled that schools can punish “vulgar” speech—at 
least when it occurs on campus, e.g., Fraser, 478 U. S., at 
683–684; ante, at 5. 

The  discipline  here—a  1-year  suspension  from  the 
team—may  strike  some  as  disproportionate.  Tr.  of  Oral 
Arg.  31,  57.    But  that  does  not  matter  for  our  purposes. 
State  courts  have  policed  school  disciplinary  decisions  for 
“reasonable[ness].”  E.g., Burdick, 31 Iowa, at 565.  And dis-
proportionate  discipline  “can  be  challenged  by  parents  in
the political process.”  Morse, 551 U. S., at 420 (THOMAS, J., 
concurring).    But  the  majority  and  the  parties  provide  no 
textual or historical evidence to suggest that federal courts
generally  can  police  the  proportionality  of  school  discipli-
nary decisions in the name of the First Amendment. 

II 
The majority declines to consider any of this history, in-
stead favoring a few pragmatic guideposts.  This is not the 
first time the Court has chosen intuition over history when
it comes to student speech.  The larger problem facing us
today is that our student-speech cases are untethered from 
any textual or historical foundation.  That failure leads the 
majority  to  miss  much  of  the  analysis  relevant  to  these 
kinds of cases.